IN RE: Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Antitrust Litigation Involving Water Meters

Case MDL No. 23 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 7
pp JUDICIAL PANEL ON
. BO ZF A X23 MULTIDISTRICT UITIGATICA
) FILED . yy
Lo THE JUDICIAL PANEL 0CT 1 01969 SE
0 ON SCE IN. hE
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT PRIVATE CIVIL TREBLE )
DAMAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION INVOLVING ) DOCKET NO. 23
WATER METERS )
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM*,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH
S. LORD, III*, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
On April 21, 1969, counsel for the plaintiffs in the ten.
cases then pending in the Northern District of California filed
a joint motion with the Panel to transfer cases pending in
other districts to the Northern District of California for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. s1407.1/ On May 1, 1969, an order was entered setting
this matter for hearing on May 23, 1969 but prior to the hearing
all counsel stipulated to a waiver of the hearing and agreed Lo
* Although they were unable to attend the hearing, Judges
Wisdom and Lord have, with the consent of all parties repre-
sented at the hearing, participated in this decision.
1l/ We need not consider whether these plaintiffs have standing
to file such a motion since the motion was subsequently joined
by the plaintiffs in one of the actions to be transferred and by
four of the five defendants. We also note that the hearing was
held on the initiative of the Panel rather than on motion of any3 of the parties.

Case MDL No. 23 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 7
® 2
"that transfer of the cases which are the subject of the fore-
going motion to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California pursuant to Section 1407 of the Judicial
Code is appropriate." The May 23d hearing order was vacated but
the Panel later concluded that a hearing should be held prior
to the transfer of any of these cases and an appropriate order
was entered and distributed to all counsel .2/ Two new cases
were included in the June 26 order3/ and that order was later
amended to include two other recently filed actions.
2/ The order of June 26, 1969 setting this matter for hearing
provided in part:
After consideration of the stipulation of the
parties to the affected actions for transfer without
C hearing, the Panel finds that it is desirable to hold	” a plenary hearing on the motion of plaintiffs to
transfer the pending actions to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California
under Section 1407, Title 28, United States Code, and
upon the question of transfer under Section 1407 of
said cases to a district or districts other than the
Northern District of California. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that on July 25, 1969 a hearing shall
be held in Denver, Colorado to consider the above
motion and to consider the transfer of said cases on
the initiative of the Panel to a district or districts
other than the Northern District of California. The
Panel will also consider at the hearing the transfer
of the actions commenced subsequent to the filing of
the above motion. . . .
3/ No. 51526, City of Beverly Hills, et al. v. Rockwell
Manufacturing Co., et al., Northern District of California
and No. 69-1125, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al.
v. Neptune Meter Co., et al., Eastern District of Pennsylvania
4/ No. 51741, City of Santa Ana v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co.,
: et al., Northern District of California and No. 3932, City of
Seattle v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., et al., Western District
[) of Washington. :

Case MDL No. 23 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	3 of 7
® - 3 -
All defendants have filed a joint memoranda supporting
the transfer of all cases not originally filed therein to
the Northern District of California for coordinated or conso-
lidated pretrial proceedings. Counsel representing the
plaintiffs and counsel representing the defendants at the
hearing in Denver both strongly advocated the transfer of
these cases to the Northern District of California under
Section 1407. No one has been heard to oppose this transfer.
Although this civil antitrust litigation is not based on
any prior government action, either civil or criminal, the
cases clearly present substantial common questions of fact for
® all complaints charge, in substantially identical terms, a
combination and conspiracy to (1) fix prices, (2) submit
rigged bids, and (3) allocate customers, markets and terri-
tories.>’ The existence of common questions of fact relating
to the existence and effect of the alleged conspiracy is
conceded by all parties. These critical common questions of
fact clearly present a sufficient basis for transfer for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. See, for
example, In re Antibiotic Drugs, 295 F. Supp. 1402 (Jud. Pan.
Mult. Lit. 1968).
All parties urge the selection of the Northern District
of California as the most appropriate transferee forum and
C 5/ The City of Kansas City, Missouri also charges the defendants
i with conspiring to control the design of water meters and parts
and with conspiring to create and maintain an artificial barrier
to the entry of others into this business.

Case MDL No. 23 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	4 of 7
® a -
there is substantial support for such a choice. The fact
that the majority of these cases (71%) were filed in the
Northern District of California is relevant to the selection
of that court as the transferee forum. Cf, In re Protection
Devices and Equipment, ete., 295 F. Supp. 39 (Jud. Pan. Mult.
Lit. 1968). The fact that more discovery has taken place
in that district than in any other district is also of
importance. In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 295 F. Supp. 33
(Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968). We are satisfied that convenience
of parties and witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of
these actions will be best served by the transfer of all cases
® not filed therein to the Northern District of California.
The parties suggest that these cases be assigned to Judge
Albert C. Wollenberg of the Northern District of California
who has overseen some of the discovery which has occurred in
that district. However, we do not believe that discovery is
so far advanced that the assignment of these cases to another
judge would result in a waste of judicial energies. Chief
Judge Chambers of the Ninth Circuit has assigned Judge George
Boldt of the Western District of Washington®/ to the Northern
District of California and Chief Judge Harris of that district
has consented in writing to the assignment of these cases to
Judge Boldt.
PY 6/ The two cases filed in the Western District of Washington	had previously been assigned to Judge Boldt.

Case MDL No. 23 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 7
® 5 -
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the cases on the attached
Schedule A not already pending therein be and they are hereby
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and with the consent of that court they
are hereby assigned to the Honorable George H. Boldt for coordi-
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Attachment

Case MDL No. 23 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 6 of 7
SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
l. City of San Diego, etc. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. : No. 50190
2. City of Phoenix, Arizona v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 50191
3. City and County of San Francisco, etc. v. Neptune Civil Action
Meter Co., et al. No. 50192
4. Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Civil Action
Angeles v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., et al. No. 50947
5. City of Burbank, et al. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 50949
6. City of Tucson v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., Civil Action
et al. No. 50249
® 7. Marin Municipal Water District v. Rockwell Civil Action
Manufacturing Co., et al. No. 50284
8. City of Portland, Oregon v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 50339
9. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Rockwell Civil Action
Manufacturing Co., et al. No. 50613
10. City of Pasadena, et al. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 51131
11. City of Beverly Hills, et al. v. Rockwell Civil Action
Manufacturing Co., et al. No. 51526
lla. City of Santa Ana v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 51741
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
12. Alderwood Water District v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. ~ No. 3912
. l2a. City of Seattle v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., Civil Action
® et al. No. 3932

Case MDL No. 23 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 7 of 7
® WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
13. Kansas City, Missouri v. Neptune Meter Co., Civil Action
et al. No. 17339-2
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14. City of Orange, et al. v. Rockwell Manufacturing Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 69-702-FW
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
15. City of Philadelphia, Pa., et al. v. Neptune Civil Action
Meter Co., et al. No. 67-1125