Wortman v. Air New Zealand

536 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15357
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedFebruary 19, 2008
DocketMDL No. 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 536 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Wortman v. Air New Zealand) 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
Wortman v. Air New Zealand, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15357 (jpml 2008).

Opinion

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in the Northern Distinct of California Wort-man action have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Northern District of California. All responding parties agree that this district is the most appropriate transferee district for this litigation, but variously advocate selection of three different Northern District of California judges as the MDL No. 1913 transferee judge.

[1367]*1367This litigation currently consists of two actions, one action each in the Northern District of California and the Central District of California.1

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations that various airline defendants conspired to fix the price of passenger airfares for flights between the United States and transpacific destinations in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We are persuaded that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation, because (1) all responding parties agree that the Northern District of California is a suitable transferee district; (2) one constituent action and thirteen potential tag-along actions are already pending there; and (3) Judge Charles R. Breyer has the experience to steer this docket on a prudent course.

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 Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.

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

Related

In Re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig.
536 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
536 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wortman-v-air-new-zealand-jpml-2008.