IN RE: Multistate Tax Compact Litigation

. A Case MDL No. 240 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 GSE of 3	oe - 7 A 1 1
MULTIOISTRICT Laan onTE FILED
DOCKET NO. 240 AUG 4 - 1976
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICTPAFRIISHST Karp
IN RE MULTISTATE TAX COMPACT LITIGATION K OF THE PANEL
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
This matter came on for hearing before the Panel
on January 23, 1976, in Washington, D.C. Then before
us was the motion of plaintiffs in the United States
Steel action, pending in the Southern District of New
York, to transfer three other actions, pending in the
Western District of Washington and the Districts of
Idaho and North Dakota, to the Southern District of
New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Because a
statutory three-judge court had been empaneled to
hear and determine constitutional questions raised
by defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
United States Steel action, we deferred decision on
the Section 1407 motion until the three-judge court
had disposed of the matter before it. Recently, the
three-judge court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the United States Steel
action. United States Steel Corporation, etc. v.
Multistate Tax Commission, et al., No. 72 Civ. 3238
(Ss.D.N.Y., filed July 8, 1976).
The three-judge court convened in United States
Steel considered and rejected each of plaintiffs’
constitutional challenges to the Multistate Tax Compact
and the Multistate Tax Commission's subpoena and audit
authority thereunder. Because each of the defendants
in the Washington, Idaho and North Dakota actions was
a member of the Rule 23(b) (2) plaintiffs' class in-
volved in United States Steel, the decision of the
three-judge court effectively disposed of the bulk of
the common factual and legal issues involved in this
litigation. See Rule 23(c) (3), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
It now appearing to the Panel on the basis of the
record before us that coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings under Section 1407 in the actions listed on the

= Case MDL No. 240 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 3
A
following Schedule A would neither serve the convenience
of the parties or witnesses nor further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to trans-
fer the actions on Schedule A pursuant to Section 1407
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
. FOR THE PANEL: emmy
<0 we. ied	Moma WisdeJohn Minor Wisdom
Chairman
-

Ce Case MDL No. 240 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 3
SCHEDULE A
DOCKET NO. 240 -- In re Multistate Tax Compact Litigation
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States Steel Corporation, Civil Action
etc. v. Multistate Tax Commission, No. 72Civ,.3238(CLB)
et al. —
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Multistate Tax Commission, et al. Civil Action
v. American Can Company No. C75-164 T
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Multistate Tax Commission, et al. Civil Action
v. Sperry Rand Corp. No. 1-75-168
DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Byron L. Dorgan, etc. v. International Civil Action
Harvester Co. No. Al-84-25