Opinion
M 19-93A and the actions listed on Appendix A.
August 7, 1971.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 71-11
ORDER TRANSFERRING "FARM CASES" TO THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1404(a)
On July 16 this court directed the parties in the actions listed on the attached Appendix A to show cause in writing on or before July 26, 1971, why said actions should or should not be transferred to the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The various pleadings and arguments of the parties with respect to the show cause order were considered at a hearing in St. Paul, Minnesota, on July 28, 1971.
The court has considered the arguments of defendants that the court lacks authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) to accomplish this transfer. This argument is rejected for reasons substantially similar to those set forth in Administrative Order No. 71-5, 333 F. Supp. 299, dated May 14, 1971, pet. for mandamus denied, Pfizer Co., Inc. v. Lord, 447 F.2d 122 (2d Cir.), pet. for rehearing denied, 449 F.2d 119 (July 13, 1971 2d Cir.). The court also has concluded that transfer would serve the "convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice." Indeed transfer of the farm cases to Minnesota seems to have been specifically contemplated by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation, which in Footnote 8 of its Opinion and Order of December 2, 1970, stated, "In this way, Judge Lord can conduct pretrial proceeding in New York and can, upon completion of the pretrial proceeding, try the farm cases in Minnesota." The court notes that class leaders in the three principal farm classes originally filed their actions in the District of Minnesota and that no farm plaintiff has expressed any opposition to trying its action in that district.
It is therefore ordered that all actions listed in Appendix A shall be transferred to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) upon completion of pretrial proceedings.
APPENDIX A
Anderson Cattle Co. v. American 69 Civ. 5031 Cyanamid, et al. (Kansas, T-4659)
Louisiana Hatcheries Inc. v. Chas. 70 Civ. 5590 Pfizer Co., Inc., et al. (E.D. La., 70 Civ. 7000)
Edwards Bros. Milling v. Chas. Pfizer 69 Civ. 3899 Co., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.C., 2372)
Missouri Farmers Association v. Chas. 69 Civ. 4261 Pfizer Co., Inc., et al. (W.D. Mo., 17640-4)
Bernard Kay v. Chas. Pfizer Co., 70 Civ. 1409 Inc., et al. (S.D. Ohio 70-76)
Burgess Poultry Market v. Chas. 69 Civ. 4026 Pfizer Co., Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex., A-69-CA-108)
Carl F. Dodge Marlea Dodge v. Chas. 70 Civ. 1306 Pfizer Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill., 70 C 500)
A.C. Smith Poultry v. Chas. Pfizer 69 Civ. 5574 Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga., 1293)
Balfour, Guthrie Co. v. Chas. Pfizer 69 Civ. 4909 Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Calif., 52342)
Jack England v. Chas. Pfizer Co., 69 Civ. 3772 Inc., et al. (W.D. Ark., ED-69-C-8)
Guy Phelps v. Chas. Pfizer Co., Inc., 69 Civ. 5684 et al. (N.D. Ala., 69-767)
Rutledge Ranch v. Chas. Pfizer Co., 69 Civ. 5683 Inc., et al. (N.D. Ala., 69-766)
Marshall Durbin Food v. Chas. Pfizer 70 Civ. 677 Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ala., 3015-N)
Kenneth Murray v. Chas. Pfizer Co., 69 Civ. 5685 Inc., et al. (N.D. Ala., 69-768)