Friday, December 27, 2013

In re Cuisinart Food Processor Antitrust Litigation case brief

In re Cuisinart Food Processor Antitrust Litigation case brief summary
506 F.Supp. 651 (1981)

Defendant filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1407, to have six class actions in which it was a defendant, and two in which is was an alleged co-conspirator, filed in five U.S. district courts around the country, centralized in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...