Bott et al v. Delphi Automotive LLP et al

Filing 21

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan. In re: Automotive Wire Harness Systems Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2012)

Case MDL No. 2311 Document 179 Filed 02/07/12 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE WIRE HARNESS
SYSTEMS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Lucha Bott, et al. v. Delphi Automotive LLP, et al.,
)
N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:11-04949 12-10674 )
Susan LaCava v. Delphi Automotive LLP, et al.,
)
E.D. Michigan, C.A. No. 2:11-14399
)

Filed: 02/07/12
U.S. District Court
East Dist. of MI Detroit

MDL No. 2311

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in the action pending in the
Eastern District of Michigan action moves to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation
currently consists of two actions pending in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Northern District
of California.2
All responding parties agree that centralization of these actions is appropriate, and most
support the Eastern District of Michigan as transferee district. Certain plaintiffs suggest other
transferee districts, including the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Louisiana,
the Southern District of Alabama, and the District of Puerto Rico.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization of all actions in the Eastern District of Michigan
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. It is undisputed that these actions share factual questions arising out of an alleged
conspiracy to inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or artificially stabilize prices of automotive wire harness
systems. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Michigan is the most appropriate transferee
district. Most responding parties support centralization there, where the vast majority of the actions
are pending, including the first-filed action. Moreover, several defendants are located in this district
and a related criminal investigation is ongoing there.

*

2

Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. took no part in the decision of this matter.

The parties have notified the Panel that 42 additional related actions are pending.
These actions are potential tag-along actions. See Rule 7.1, R.P.J.P.M.L.

Case MDL No. 2311 Document 179 Filed 02/07/12 Page 2 of 2

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action pending in
the Northern District of California is transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Marianne O. Battani for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________
John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

Barbara S. Jones
Marjorie O. Rendell

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the
original on file in this office.

Clerk, U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Michigan
By

Sarah Schoenherr
Deputy Clerk