Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC et al

Filing 22

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2817) Transferring 4 action(s) to Judge Amy J. St. Eve in the N.D. Illinois.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 2/1/2018. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2817, ILN/1:17-cv-07827 (CMD) Modified on 2/1/2018 (CMD).

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: DEALER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 2817

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Defendants CDK Global, LLC, and CDK Global, Inc. (collectively CDK),
The Reynolds and Reynolds Company (Reynolds), and Computerized Vehicle Registration (CVR)
move to centralize five actions in the Northern District of Illinois. The actions are pending in the
Central District of California (MVSC), the Northern District of Illinois (Hartley Buick), the Southern
District of Mississippi (O’Neil), the District of New Jersey (Teterboro Automall), and the Western
District of Wisconsin (Authenticom), as listed on the attached Schedule A. The Panel has been
informed of four additional federal actions involving related issues.1
Responding plaintiffs largely support centralization, but disagree on an appropriate transferee
district. Plaintiff in Hartley Buick supports centralization in the Northern District of Illinois or the
Western District of Wisconsin. Plaintiff in the Hoover Automotive tag-along action pending in the
Western District of Wisconsin supports centralization in the Western District of Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs in two actions – Authenticom and the Cox Automotive tag-along also pending in the
Western District of Wisconsin – support centralization, but only in the Western District of
Wisconsin. Plaintiff in MVSC opposes inclusion of its action in the proposed MDL, but, in the
alternative, supports centralization in the Western District of Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in Teterboro
Automall and a potential tag-along action also pending in the District of New Jersey support
centralization in the District of New Jersey.2
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this

1

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.
2

In their brief to the Panel, these plaintiffs indicated that they opposed centralization, on the
grounds that alternatives to formal centralization were practicable. See Teterboro Automall Pls.’
Mem. in Response to Defs.’ Mot. for Transfer, at 9 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 4, 2017) (ECF No. 36) (“Informal
coordination is practicable because of the limited number of counsel involved in the Related Cases
. . . .”). At oral argument, however, counsel stated that the New Jersey plaintiffs supported
centralization.

-2litigation. The actions share factual issues arising from allegations that defendants CDK and
Reynolds illegally (1) used their purported dominance in the Dealer Management System (DMS)3
marketplace to force motor vehicle dealerships to enter into long-term DMS contracts at artificially
inflated prices, (2) blocked data integrators4 (such as plaintiff in Authenticom) from accessing dealer
data, (3) tied the provision of data integration services to the supply of DMS, and (4) used their
control of data integration services to impose exclusive dealing restrictions on vendors (e.g.,
prohibiting vendors from using other data integration providers, and charging vendors inflated prices
for data integration). Centralization would eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery, avoid
the potential for inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other pretrial matters, serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and conserve party and judicial resources.
We deny the Authenticom and MVSC plaintiffs’ requests to exclude their actions from the
MDL.5 Although Authenticom is somewhat more advanced than the other actions, significant pretrial
proceedings, including fact depositions and expert discovery, remain to be conducted.6 And, while
the focus of MVSC arguably may be somewhat narrower than that of the other actions, the factual
overlap is undeniable.7 Indeed, although opposing inclusion of its action in the MDL in the first
instance, the MVSC plaintiff – which shares counsel with the Authenticom plaintiff8 – alternatively
advocates centralization in the Western District of Wisconsin, even though its suit is the first-filed
action and was brought in the Central District of California.
We select the Northern District of Illinois as transferee district. The district is a central,
readily accessible venue for all parties. CDK is headquartered in the district, and relevant documents
and witnesses thus will be found there. Further, centralization in the Northern District of Illinois

3

A DMS is the software and hardware system that manages numerous functions of a motor
vehicle dealership and that the dealership uses to enter data concerning inventory, buyers, financing,
etc.
4

A data integrator extracts raw data from a dealership’s DMS and transforms it into data
appropriate for use by the various vendors that provide services to the dealership – services such as
inventory management, customer relations management, and electronic vehicle registration and
titling.
5

Whether Cox Automotive should be included in the MDL will be addressed through our
conditional transfer order process. See Panel Rule 7.1.
6

On January 12, 2018, the Western District of Wisconsin court stayed depositions, discovery
related to electronically-stored information, and all court deadlines pending the Panel’s decision on
centralization.
7

See, e.g., MVSC Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 133-48.

8

Plaintiffs in Cox Automotive also are represented by this same counsel.

-3enables us to assign the litigation to Judge Amy J. St Eve, an able and experienced jurist who has
skillfully handled a number of other MDLs. We are confident that the judge will steer this litigation
on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of Illinois are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: DEALER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 2817

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
MOTOR VEHICLE SOFTWARE CORPORATION v. CDK GLOBAL, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00896
Northern District of Illinois
HARTLEY BUICK GMC TRUCK, INC. v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17-07827
Southern District of Mississippi
JOHN O'NEIL JOHNSON TOYOTA, LLC v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC,
C.A. No. 3:17-00888
District of New Jersey
TETERBORO AUTOMALL, INC. v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-08714
Western District of Wisconsin
AUTHENTICOM, INC. v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00318