IN RE: Texas Concrete Pipe Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 26 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 5
\ 2 7 \ fee 92 Hon PANEL On iMTSisTCT ss
THE JUDICIAL PANEL L030 Regen iE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PATRICIA 0) wir SOG tak
IN RE TEXAS CONCRETE PIPE ANTITRUST ) A
LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 26
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM¥, Co
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH EE
S. LORD, III¥*, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL : I
PER CURIAM |
As the Panel had already transferred the East of % :
the Rockies Concrete Pipe cases to the Eastern District of I
Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
ceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407% ana had a motion before it
to transfer one of the West Coast Pipe cases to the Central
District of California for coordination or consolidation with 5 :
other cases pending in the Ninth Circuit, it seemed desirable oo
to determine whether the Texas Concrete Pipe cases (see oo
Schedule A) were sufficiently related to either of these Co
groups of cases to merit their transfer for coordinated or oT
consolidated pretrial proceedings. We therefore ordered the Co
parties in the Texas cases to show cause why those cases should
* Judges Wisdom and Lord were unable to attend the hearing
but with the consent of all parties represented at the hearing
they have participated in this decision.
1/ In re East of the Rockies Concrete Pipe Litigation Fed.
Supp. (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1969)

Case MDL No. 26 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 5
- 2
® not be transferred under §1407 and we set the matter for
hearing in Denver on July 25, 1969.27
In their responses to the show cause order and
in argument before the Panel in Denver, all parties strongly
urged the Panel not to transfer these cases. We are convinced
that there 1s no connection between the Texas cases and the
East of the Rockies cases: the defendants are entirely differ-
ent, there are no common witnesses, and the cases stem from
different criminal proceedings. Although based on different
criminal indictments the Texas cases and the West Coast cases
do not appear to be totally unrelated for they involve several
common defendants, some common witnesses and a potential for
common discovery. We are satisfied, however, that these 23
® cases are proceeding expeditiously and we do not believe that
2/ The "Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing" in pertinent
part was as follows:
You and each of you are hereby ORDERED to show
cause why the actions listed on Schedule A should not
be transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings on the initiative of the Panel under Section
1407, Title 28, United States Code, to either the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Penn-
sylvania, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, or to a district or districts other
than the one in which they are now pending.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing will be held
at 9:30 a.m. on July 25, 1969 in the Main Courtroom, United
States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, on the question
of such transfer.

Case MDL No. 26 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 5
® 2
their transfer to another district would promote their
Just and efficient conduct. We therefore decline to order
them transferred, on our own initiative, for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings under §1407.
®
® :

Case MDL No. 26 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	4 of 5
SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
1. Greenbelt Municipal and Industrial Civil Action :
Water Authority v. United Concrete No. 3-2946-C
Pipe Corporation, et al.
2. San Patricio Municipal Water District Civil Action
v. United Concrete Pipe Corporation, No. 3-2947-C
et al.
3. City of Odessa, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2948-C
bh, city of Austin, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2285-C
5. City of Amarillo, Texas v. United Civil Action
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2286-C
6. City of Fort Worth, Texas v. United Civil Action
® Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2287-C
7. City of Garland, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2288-C
8. City of Lubbock, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2289-C
9. Clty of Midland, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2290-C
10. Colorado River Municipal Water District Civil Action
Vv. United Concrete Pipe Corporation No. 3-2291-C
et al.
11. City of Dallas, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2354-C
12. City of San Antonio, Texas v. United Civil Action
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2355-C
13. City of Corpus Christi, Texas v. United Civil Action
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2350-C
14, City of Waco, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
: [ Pipe Corporation, et al. - No. 3-2357-C

Case MDL No. 26 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 5
-2 =
: 15. City of Irving, Texas, v. United Clvil Action :
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2358-C
16. City of Wichita Falls, Texas v. United Civil Action
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2359-C
17. City of Big Spring, Texas v. United Civil Action
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2360-~C
18. North Texas Municipal Water District Civil Action
v. United Concrete Pipe Corporation, No. 3-2361-C
et al.
19. White River Municipal Water District v. Civil Action
United Concrete Pipe Corporation, No. 3-2362-C
et al.
20. City of El Paso, Texas v. United Civil Action
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2423-C
21. City of Mesquite, Texas v. United Civil Action
Concrete Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2465~C
22. National Water Corporation and Great Civil Action
® Plains Water Company, Inc., Vv. No. 3-2466-C
United Concrete Pipe Corporation,
et al.
23. City of Borger, Texas v. United Concrete Civil Action
Pipe Corporation, et al. No. 3-2612-C