IN RE: Exterior Siding and Aluminum Coil Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 454 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3 !
| MULTE PRGA on TE
J Se	da abe	Rn | SU
APR ~g ee 7/4 | : SL .DOCKET NO. 454 ayn, . Ad
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION'E/4:il SE
IN RE EXTERIOR SIDING AND ALUMINUM COIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation consists of three actions pending in ; SLE
three districts -- one action each in the Northern District vo Co .
of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the :
District of Minnesota. Presently before the Panel is a : oe
motion, as amended, by nine corporations that are defendants i so
in all three actions to centralize, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. }
§1407, the actions in this litigation in the District of
Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs in the California action have cross-moved to
centralize the actions in the Northern District of California So :
or, alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs Co
in the Minnesota action have joined in the cross-motion. co
Plaintiff in the Illinois action also favors centraliza- oo Co
tion and supports selection of the Northern District of :
Illinois or, in the alternative, the Northern District of
California as the transferee forum. No responding party }
has opposed centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Ce
the Panel finds that the three actions involve common questions E
of fact and that centralization of the actions under 28 CL
U.S.C. §1407 in the District of Minnesota will best serve :
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All three }
actions allege a nationwide antitrust conspiracy among de- i
fendants, extending from the use of production capacity Co
for aluminum coil to the production, distribution and sale Co
of exterior siding and related building products and accessories. So -
Overlapping class certifications have also been sought in I :
all three actions. Centralization under Section 1407 is
thus necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
Although no forum could be described as the nexus of Ler
this litigation, on balance we are persuaded that the District : BU
- of Minnesota is the appropriate transferee forum because Ce
the action there is most advanced. The Minnesota action Co .
has been pending in that district for over five years. Co B
Rulings have been made on amendments to the complaint, discovery Co
issues, a noncommunication order, class certification motions :
and other matters. In contrast, the Illinois and California
actions have been pending for a little more than four months.

~ z Case MDL No. 454 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 3
. -2 : |
¢o IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.	§1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and ;
pending in districts other than the District of Minnesota :
be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the District
of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned :
to the Honorable Charles R. Weiner, sitting by designation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2922(d), for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action already pending in aE
that district listed on Schedule A. )
| FOR THE PANEL:
s
| Contrea.Cnny	Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

=~, Te Case MDL No. 454 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3
SCHEDULE A :
MDL-454 —— In re Exterior Siding and Aluminum Coil Antitrust Litigation
District of Minnesota
@ Hoyt Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Alside, Inc., et al.,C.A. No. 4-75-257
Northern District of California
Western Builders, Inc., et al. v. Alside, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. C80-4400-MHP
Northern District of Illinois
Midwest Builders and Materials, Inc. v. Alside, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80C6804