In re LKQ Corp. Aftermarket Automobile Grille Trademark Litigation

Counsel

These actions arise from the seizure by United States Customs and Border Protection of aftermarket automobile grilles at various ports around the country. Beyond this, the actions are notably different. In the two forfeiture actions pending in the Southern District of Georgia, the government seeks forfeiture of certain of the grilles on the basis that they bear counterfeit marks, or marks that unlawfully copy or simulate registered trademarks of the original automobile manufacturers. In the Delaware action, LKQ, which imported the grilles, asserts claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and antitrust violations against Chrysler based on its alleged instigation and direction of the government's purported misapplication of the Lanham Act and the Tariff Act of 1930 to seize the aftermarket grilles. Finally, in the D.C. action, LKQ challenges the actions of various federal agencies and officers with respect to the seizure of the aftermarket grilles. LKQ alleges that the government unreasonably and unlawfully delayed instituting civil forfeiture actions for the grilles, and that this delay constitutes a violation of LKQ's Fifth Amendment due process rights. While these actions will share some common factual questions, these issues are not sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant centralization, particularly given the small number of actions and involved parties., To the extent these actions may involve duplicative discovery or motion practice, alternatives to centralization appear eminently feasible. One of the forfeiture actions now pending in the Southern District *1356of Georgia was transferred sua sponte from the Central District of California under the first-to-file doctrine (after both LKQ and the United States indicated consent to venue in the Southern District of Georgia). At oral argument, counsel for Chrysler stated that it would agree to a Section 1404 transfer of the Delaware action to S.D. Georgia. And, in the D.C. action, the United States has moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer that action to the Southern District of Georgia. "[W]here a reasonable prospect exists that resolution of Section 1404 motions could eliminate the multidistrict character of a litigation, transfer under Section 1404 is preferable to centralization." In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. , 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Such a reasonable prospect exists here., Even if transfer is denied, this litigation involves only four actions pending in three districts. Informal cooperation among the relatively few involved attorneys and coordination among the involved courts therefore are practicable alternatives to centralization. See, e.g. , In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig. , 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978) ; see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004)., IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.