American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 144

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER (MDL Panel No. 2281) - Motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, for centralization is denied. (Ordered by Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on 10/6/2011) (uls)

Case MDL No. 2281 Document 32 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (GDS)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
US Airways, Inc. v. Sabre Holdings Corporation, et al.,
S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:11-02725
American Airlines, Inc v. Travelport Limited, et al.,
N.D. Texas, C.A. No. 4:11-00244

)
)
)
)

MDL No. 2281

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendants Sabre Inc., Sabre Holdings
Corporation, and Sabre Travel International Ltd. (collectively Sabre) move to centralize this
litigation in the Northern District of Texas. American Airlines, Inc. (American), the sole plaintiff
in the Northern District of Texas action and a related Texas state court action, and US Airways, Inc.
(USAir), the sole plaintiff in the Southern District of New York action, both oppose centralization.
Travelport Limited and Travelport, L.P. (Travelport), which, with Sabre, are defendants in the
Northern District of Texas action, submitted a one-page response stating that they do not oppose
centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407
centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. The two actions in this litigation do involve some common
factual issues. These common issues arise from allegations that Sabre, through its control of what
is said to be the country’s largest Global Distribution System (GDS),1 effectively controls American,
USAir, and other airlines’ ability to distribute fare, schedule, and availability information to, and
to obtain reservations and sell tickets through, travel agents that subscribe to its GDS, and that Sabre
has abused this monopoly power by engaging in various exclusionary conduct (including imposing
onerous and anticompetitive contract terms in its agreements with participating airlines). There are,

*

1

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

A GDS is a computerized system used to distribute airline fare, flight, and availability
information to travel agencies (including online travel agencies), and to enable those agencies to
make reservations and issue tickets.

Case MDL No. 2281 Document 32 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 2

however, only two actions in this docket.2 See In re: Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig., 753 F. Supp. 2d
1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (“As we have stated in the past, where only a minimal number of actions
are involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for
centralization.”). Moreover, Sabre is represented in both actions by common counsel. In these
circumstances, we believe that informal cooperation among the involved attorneys is both practicable
and preferable. See In re: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Litig., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1378-79(J.P.M.L. 2011) (denying centralization of four actions in
which the common defendant was represented by the same counsel in all actions, concluding that
“alternatives to formal centralization, such as voluntary cooperation among the few involved counsel
and courts, appear[ed] viable”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for
centralization of these two actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Barbara S. Jones
Marjorie O. Rendell

2

Frank C. Damrell, Jr.
Paul G. Barbadoro

Especially given the small universe of involved cases, the pendency of the Texas state court
action, which involves a related claim brought by American under the Texas antitrust statute, weighs
against centralization, because it means that creation of an MDL would work only an incomplete fix.
See In re: Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Sec. (STARS) Transactions Litig., 729 F. Supp.
2d 1357, 1357 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (denying centralization of two actions, in part because an MDL
“would not gather all litigation concerning the [subject] transactions before a single court,” as related
actions were pending in the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims).