Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, United States Federal Court.

Summary

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, United States Federal Court. In re Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation 375 F.Supp… (1974)

Like the actions previously transferred in this litigation, both the Bohaty and Fredrick actions allege that defendants' activities concerning Holiday Magic's multilevel sales and distribution system were fraudulent and in violation of either the federal securities or antitrust laws. Thus, common questions of fact are prevalent and transfer is necessary to prevent needless duplication of discovery.
Source: Wikisource

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, United States Federal Court. In re Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation 375 F.Supp… (1974)

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all distributors of Holiday Magic products. Plaintiffs argue that the Bridgeman action is strictly a local matter which shares insignificant common factual issues with the rest of the litigation. They point out that, unlike the actions already pending in the transferee district, the complaint in this action does not contain allegations arising under either the federal antitrust or securities laws. Plaintiffs also maintain that they would be unduly inconvenienced if their action were transferred to California.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature