506 F.Supp. 651 (1981)
After defendant was indicted for various violations of the Sherman Act in Connecticut, plaintiff was named as a defendant in six class actions and a co-conspirator in two class actions, filed in Connecticut, California, and Illinois. Defendant, therefore, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1407, to have all the actions centralized in the U.S. District Court for the district of Connecticut.
- The panel found that there were common questions of law and fact, and that centralization would promote justice and the efficient conduct of the litigation.
- The panel noted that although there would be some inconvenience, witnesses could be deposed near their residence, and the inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits of centralization.
- The panel, therefore, granted the motion.
The panel granted the motion to centralize the actions, since all actions had the same defendant and/or co-conspirator, all had common questions of fact, and all arose out of a federal indictment of defendant for violations of the Sherman Act. Because Connecticut had the most contacts, centralization to the District Court for the District of Connecticut was appropriate.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.