IN RE: Clark Oil and Refining Corporation Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 140 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 4
IDInI) PANEL ON
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL pal TCE ELTOATN
® MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION <rp (g 1373
Tenia DL HTYARD
re Con lifLITIGATION ET DOCRET "NE 140
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH*, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER¥,
JOSEPH $. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of two treble damage antitrust
class actions against Clark 0il and Refining Company in two dis-
tricts: the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the Northern Dis-
trict of Illinois. Plaintiffs in both actions allege that defend-
® ant Clark Oil has violated the federal antitrust laws by fixing
retail prices charged by its dealers and by requiring them to sell
only products approved by defendant. In addition, it is alleged
that Clark 0il uses short-term leases in order to police its
dealers. Plaintiffs in each action purport to represent a class
consisting of approximately 1,800 Clark service station operators.
Plaintiffs in the Illinois action move the Panel for
an order transferring the Wisconsin action to the Northern
District of Illinois for coozdinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Plaintiff in the Wis-
* Although Judges Murrah and Becker were not present at
the hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties,
participated in this decision.
J

Case MDL No. 140 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 4
-2 -
® consin action opposes transfer and in the alternative favors
the Eastern District of Wisconsin as the transferee forum; defend-
ant favors transfer. We find that these actions involve common
questions of fact and that transfer of the Illinois action to
the Eastern District of Wisconsin will best serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation.
The Wisconsin plaintiff suggests that these two actions
come within the rationale of our decision in In re Scotch Whiskey
Antitrust Litigation, 299 F.Supp. 543 (J.P.M.L. 1969), denying
transfer of two treble damage actions because of the minimal
number of cases and relative simplicity of the common factual
® questions. We believe that the greater complexity of factual
issues presented here and the presence of competing requests for
class designation distinguish this litigation from the Scotch
Whiskey cases and make transfer necessary in order to avoid
duplication of discovery and eliminate the possibility of conflict-
ingpretrial rulings. In re Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust
Litigation, ___ F. Supp.___ (J.P.M.L., filed January 5, 1973).
Because the federal courts wherein these actions are
pending are in proximity to each other, the selection of either
court as the transferee forum for this litigation will not sub-
stantially inconvenience any of the parties. Ye are persuaded,
however, that the Eastern District of Wisconsin is the preferable
transferee district since defendant's home office is in that
® district and many of the anticipated witnesses and relevant

Case MDL No. 140 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 4
-3 =~
® documents are located there.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on
the attached Schedule A pending in the Northern District of
Illinois be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the Eastern
District of Wisconsin and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable John W. Reynolds for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
with the action already pending there and listed on Schedule A.
®
J

Case MDL No. 140 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 4
DOCKET NO. 140 ; SCHEDULE A.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Treamon Ray Ashcraft, et al. v. Civil Action
Clark 0il Refining Corp. No. 73C 566
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Myles Jackson v. Clark 0il & Civil Action
Refining Corp. No. 73C 74