IN RE: Amerada Hess Corporation Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 192 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 4
| BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL MULTI EANEL on® 7 MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Fl RN
"IN RE AMERADA HESS CORPORATION J slg a7192
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ] PATRICIA p. How
ei er CLERK OF THE paral- 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 :
This litigation involves the activities of Amerada Hess
Corporation (Hess) and presently consists of three actions, two
in the Southern District of Florida and one in the Southern :
District of New York. Hess is a major o0il company which has,
in the past, generally marketed its products through service
® stations owned by it and operated by franchised dealers who
lease their premises and equipment from Hess. Plaintiffs in each
action purport to represent a class of all present and former
Hess franchisees. The complaints in the three actions are
virtually identical and contain allegations that Hess violated
the federal antitrust laws by using certain illegal tying devices
in standardized contracts with its various franchisees. These
requirements allegedly include the purchase of gasoline exclu- |
sively from Hess, the execution of a monthly lease to be renewed |
at Hess's discretion, the grant of a license for the use of the
Hess tradename and the implementation	of a credit card arrange—
ment whereby the franchisees	must allow Hessa 5% discount on
® Diners' Club card sales submitted to Hess for payment.
t

| Case MDL No. 192 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 4
-2 -
® " Plaintiffs in the Florida actions move the Panel for an
" order transferring their actions to the Southern District of
New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the action pending there.
No opposition to the motion has been received. We find that
these actions involve common questions of fact and that transfer
of the Florida actions	to the Southern District of New York for
~ coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action
pending there will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. 3 :
A review	of the complaints in these actions clearly indicates
| that they involve common factual questions relating to conduct
@ that is set forth in identical contracts between Hess and its
franchisees. Coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
under Section 1407 will therefore eliminate the possibilities
of duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings,
especially on the common class action issues. See In re Equity
Funding Corporation of America Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp.
1378, 1386 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
Movants suggest, and we agree, that the Southern District
of New York is the most appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation. Since Hess's corporate headquarters is in the
yo
Movants informed the Panel of their desire to waive
oral argument and, without opposition, the question of
transfer of these actions under 28 U.S.C. §1407 was
0 submitted for decision.

Case MDL No. 192 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of4
-3-
J New York area, the bulk of the discovery sought of it will occur
there. Moreover, the action there was the first filed and is
at a more advanced stage than the others in this litigation. i
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407,
the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in
the Southern District of Florida be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John M.
. Cannella for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the action pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.
|
®

Case MDL No. 192 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 4
® SCHEDULE A : DOCKET NO. 192Shhh 2 SULA	Ne 72
a SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
James Milonas, et al. v. Amerada Hess Civil Action
Corp. No. 73 Civ. 4263
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Joseph T. Montesani, et al. v. Amerada Civil Action
Hess Corp. No. 74-750-JE
Jean Watkins, etc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. Civil Action. No. 74-204-JE