## Facts

- Multiple private civil actions were filed in several federal districts by consumers and retailers, largely as putative class actions, alleging antitrust violations involving Cuisinart-brand food processors.
- The complaints generally alleged a nationwide scheme by Cuisinarts, Inc. to fix, maintain, or stabilize resale prices through dealer arrangements and enforcement practices.
- The United States pursued related proceedings concerning essentially the same alleged resale price maintenance conduct, including a civil enforcement action and a grand jury indictment.
- Cuisinarts moved before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer and centralize the private actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, proposing the District of Connecticut.
- Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or argued for alternative transferee forums, citing localized issues, state-law variations, and the more advanced posture of at least one action.

## Issues

1. Whether the actions involved “common questions of fact” sufficient to warrant transfer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
2. Whether centralization would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, despite localized issues and differing stages of discovery.
3. If transfer was warranted, which district was the most appropriate transferee forum.

## Decision

- The JPML ordered centralization of the private actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- The Panel found substantial common questions of fact regarding the existence, scope, and implementation of an alleged nationwide resale price maintenance conspiracy.
- The Panel concluded that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, reduce the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings (including on class certification), and conserve party and judicial resources.
- The Panel selected the District of Connecticut as the transferee district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, emphasizing the location of the defendant’s headquarters, documents, and key witnesses, and the benefits of coordination with related governmental proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is appropriate when actions share substantial common factual questions and transfer will further convenience and the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- In alleged nationwide antitrust schemes, common issues concerning the existence, scope, and execution of the challenged conduct generally predominate for § 1407 purposes, even if complaints assert differing state-law theories or region-specific classes.
- Variations in procedural posture among related actions, including some cases progressing further in discovery, do not bar centralization when substantial common discovery and pretrial rulings remain.
- Selection of a transferee forum may properly consider the location of the defendant’s headquarters, relevant documents and witnesses, and the presence of related governmental actions that may warrant coordinated discovery management.

## Conclusion

The JPML centralized the related private antitrust suits in the District of Connecticut under § 1407 because they shared a common factual core concerning an alleged nationwide resale price maintenance scheme, and consolidation was expected to streamline discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and improve efficiency and convenience.


In re Cuisinart Food Processor Antitrust Litig., 506 F. Supp. 651 (J.P.M.L. 1981)