Simon v. United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc.

744 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119817
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedOctober 13, 2010
DocketMDL No. 2186
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 744 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (Simon v. United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Simon v. United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119817 (jpml 2010).

Opinion

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiff in the District of Idaho action seeks centralization, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, of these two actions in the District of Idaho. No responding party opposes centralization. Defendants,1 plaintiff in the Central District of California action, and plaintiff in a Northern District of California potential tag-along action (Marvilla) support centralization in the District of Idaho. Defendant R.D. Offutt Co. does not oppose centralization.

This litigation consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the Central District of California and the District of Idaho.2

[1382]*1382After considering all argument of counsel, we find that these two actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Idaho will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this antitrust litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to alleged anticompetitive conduct in the market for fresh and process potatoes. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, them counsel, and the judiciary.

The District of Idaho stands out as an appropriate transferee forum. Relevant documents and witnesses may be found there, inasmuch as several of the defendants are headquartered within Idaho, where much of the domestic potato industry is based. No party opposes centralization in this district. Additionally, centralization in the District of Idaho allows us to assign this litigation to a district without any currently pending MDL dockets.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action pending in the Central District of California is transferred to the District of Idaho and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in the District of Idaho.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Lit.
744 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
744 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-united-potato-growers-of-idaho-inc-jpml-2010.