IN RE: Fire Apparatus Antitrust Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: FIRE APPARATUS ANTITRUST LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3179
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:∗ The common defendants in all actions move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407
to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the District of
Kansas.1 	This litigation consists of twelve actions pending in three districts, as listed on
Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of seven additional related
actions – three in the Central District of California, one in the Southern District of California, one
in the District of Kansas, one in the Western District of Oklahoma, and one in the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.2 	The actions allege that the leading fire apparatus manufacturers in the United
States and various related entities have engaged in conduct from at least 2016 to the present to
substantially lessen competition in the U.S. fire truck industry, artificially inflate prices, and
restrain trade, in violation of federal antitrust law and/or state laws.
Plaintiffs in nine actions support centralization, though their views vary on the selection of
a transferee district. Most request the Eastern District of Wisconsin as their first choice, with some
suggesting the District of Kansas, the Northern District of California, or the Central District of
California as a second choice. One plaintiff requests the District of Kansas as its first choice or,
alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in six actions oppose centralization under
Section 1407 in favor of using motions for transfer under Section 1404 to consolidate all
related actions in a single district; alternatively, they request the Eastern District of Wisconsin as
transferee district. 	Plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions in the Central and Southern
∗ Judge David C. Norton and Judge Roger T. Benitez did not participate in the decision of this
matter.
1 The moving defendants are Oshkosh Corporation; Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.; REV Group, Inc.;
E-One, Inc.; Ferrara Fire Apparatus, Inc.; Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation; Spartan Fire,
LLC; Smeal SFA, LLC; Smeal LTC, LLC; Rosenbauer America, LLC; Rosenbauer South Dakota,
LLC; Rosenbauer Minnesota, LLC; AIP, LLC; American Industrial Partners Capital Fund IV, LP;
American Industrial Partners Capital Fund IV (Parallel), LP; AIP/CHC Holdings, LLC; and the
Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (“FAMA”).
2 These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(i) and
7.1.
Case MDL No. 3179 Document 112 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
Districts of California request exclusion of their actions from any MDL.3 	Alternatively, they
request a separate MDL in the Central District of California that would be limited to their actions
and any future actions that principally concern mergers and acquisitions in the fire truck industry,
in contrast to the alleged conspiracy involving FAMA in the actions on the motion. 	If a single
MDL 	is 	ordered 	over 	their 	objections, 	they 	request 	the 	Central 	District 	of 	California.
Eleven defendants in the California actions support centralization of all actions, including the
California potential tag-along actions, in a single MDL in the Northern District of Illinois or,
alternatively, the District of Kansas.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. The actions present common factual questions arising out of allegations that, as a
result of a series of acquisitions, three manufacturers – the REV Group, Oshkosh Corporation, and
Rosenbauer America, LLC – dominate the U.S. fire truck manufacturing industry and have used
their market power to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of fire trucks sold in the United
States from January 2016 through the present, in violation of federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs in all
actions on the motion allege that defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to increase the price
of fire trucks principally by (1) restraining the production of fire trucks; and (2) exchanging
competitively sensitive information. 	Common questions of fact will include: the duration and
scope of the alleged conspiracy; whether defendants restrained the production of fire trucks or
exchanged competitively sensitive information; whether defendants wield market power in the
relevant market; the extent of price increases; the role of private equity firm American Industrial
Partners and its affiliates in the alleged price increases; and whether plaintiffs suffered injury.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Plaintiffs opposing centralization principally argue that transfer under Section 1404
is practicable and preferable to centralization, asserting, inter alia, that plaintiffs have made
significant 	progress 	in 	self-organizing 	the 	actions 	in 	the 	Eastern 	District 	of 	Wisconsin,
Section 1404 transfer of all related actions to that district would enable the actions to be
consolidated for all purposes including trial, and Section 1404 transfer motions are pending in
three actions. On a number of occasions, the Panel has denied centralization where a “reasonable
prospect” exists that Section 1404 motions will eliminate the multidistrict character of a litigation.
See, e.g., In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378,
1379-80 (J.P.M.L. 2012). 	The mere pendency of such motions, though, is not necessarily
sufficient to defeat centralization. We look to other circumstances to determine whether there is a
reasonable prospect that the Section 1404 motions will resolve the difficulties posed by duplicative
multidistrict litigation including, for example, the number of involved districts; the amenability of
counsel to Section 1404 transfer; orders addressing transfer in the underlying actions; and the
likelihood of potential tag-along actions. See In re Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Prod. Liab. Litig.,
619 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1350-51 (J.P.M.L. 2022).
3 The California actions are People of the State of California v. REV Group, Inc., No. 26-01468
(C.D. Cal.); People of the State of California v. REV Group, Inc., No. 26-2045 (S.D. Cal.);
Ebbetts Pass Fire Protection District v. REV Group, Inc., No. 26-02926 (C.D. Cal.); and City of
Santa Barbara v. REV Group, Inc., No. 26-03045 (C.D. Cal.).
Case MDL No. 3179 Document 112 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4

-3-
Here, we find that the pending and anticipated transfer motions in the actions outside of
the Eastern District of Wisconsin do not provide a practicable alternative to centralization, given
the number of actions, districts, and involved counsel. Including potential tag-along actions, the
actions are pending in seven districts and involve at least seven distinct slates of plaintiffs’ counsel.
Defendants have opposed the Section 1404 transfer motions, and no transfer orders have issued.
Moreover, there has been no indication that Section 1404 transfer motions will be filed in the six
most recently-filed potential tag-along actions. These circumstances portend significant obstacles
and inefficiencies to transfer of these actions to a single district under Section 1404.
Plaintiffs in the four potential tag-along actions in California oppose their inclusion in the
MDL based on asserted factual and legal differences raised by their actions, while defendants
support inclusion of the actions, pointing to common factual and legal issues concerning the
alleged supracompetitive pricing in the fire truck industry. Because the actions are potential tag-
along actions, we will not decide at this time whether their transfer is appropriate.4 Any objections
to the inclusion of potential tag-along actions will be considered in the context of a motion to
vacate a conditional transfer order (if issued) or a motion to transfer.5
We conclude that the Eastern District of Wisconsin is the appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. 	Defendants Oshkosh Corporation, Pierce Manufacturing, and the REV Group
reportedly are headquartered in this district, where common witnesses and other evidence likely
will be found. Nine of the twelve actions on the motion are pending there, along with one potential
tag-along action. Additionally, the vast majority of plaintiffs support this district as their first or
second choice for transferee district. The Honorable William C. Griesbach, to whom we assign
this litigation, is an experienced transferee judge who has the willingness and ability to manage
this litigation. We are confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Eastern District of Wisconsin are transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable William C. Griesbach for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
_________________________________________
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton 	Matthew F. Kennelly
Dale A. Kimball 	Madeline Cox Arleo
4 See, e.g., In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig., 214 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1356 &
n.4 (J.P.M.L. 2016).
5 See Panel Rules 6.1 and 7.1.
Case MDL No. 3179 Document 112 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: FIRE APPARATUS ANTITRUST LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3179
SCHEDULE A
District of Massachusetts
CITY OF REVERE v. AIP, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−13462
CITY OF CHELSEA v. FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS'
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−13643
District of New Jersey
BOROUGH OF ROSELAND v. FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS'
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−18312
Eastern District of Wisconsin
IN RE: FIRE APPARATUS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, C.A. No. 1:25−01252
IN RE: DIRECT PURCHASER FIRE APPARATUS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
C.A. No. 1:25−01543
THE NEWSTEAD FIRE CO., INC. v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:25−01693
CITY OF ONALASKA v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−01717
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:25−01801
CITY OF ANN ARBOR v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:25−01973
CITY OF LIBERTY, MISSOURI v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A.
No. 1:25−02002
CITY OF ARCADIA v. AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:25−02005
COMMACK FIRE DISTRICT v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:25−02013
Case MDL No. 3179 Document 112 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4