IN RE: Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 150 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 5
Hy, Yen;	0,
i BEFQRE THE JUDICIAL PANEL TST ANE oN; ON | "e154 Tigy
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATIQN APR 15 1375
IN RE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS )} PATRIA,
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) pocket Es Olof	4THE py	NEL
- 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
The States of Connecticut, Kansas and Florida have
separately instituted in their respective federal districts
three antitrust class actions against a total of twenty-three-
major oil companies. Each state is suing individually and on
behalf of its agencies, departments and political subdivisions
that are consumers of petroleum products and services; the .-
Connecticut class also includes all individual purchasers within
the state. The complaints in each action contain allegations
that defendants jointly and severally violated various federal
antitrust laws and, in essence, challenge the structure and
business practices of the petroleum industry on a national,
state and local level. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive
relief and divestiture.
* Although Judges Wisdom, Weinfeld, Becker and Lord were
unable to attend the Panel hearing, they have, with
the consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 150 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 5
«2 =
The Florida action has been dismissed on the ground
that the Attorney General of Florida lacked authority under
Florida state law to initiate	the action. An appeal from that
dismissal is currently pending before the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.
Plaintiff Connecticut moves the Panel for an order
transferring the three actions to the Northern District of
Georgia. All defendants oppose transfer. We find that the
Kansas and Connecticut actions involve common questions of fact
and that transfer of the Kansas action to the District of Connect-
icut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the action pending there will best serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.
Under 28 U.S.C. §1407, the Panel is only authorized
to transfer civil actions that are pending in different districts.
Since the Florida action has been dismissed, it is no longer
pending in a federal district and is therefore beyond the Panel's
jurisdiction.
| With the Florida action excluded from Section 1407
consideration, defendants argue that too few actions are involved
to warrant transfer. They stress that there are defendants and
state law allegations unique to each action and that insignificant
economies will be achieved by Section 1407 treatment.

Case MDL No. 150 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 5
. | -~3-
We disagree. The complaints in these two actions are
substantially similar and prima facie raise extremely complex
factual issues involving the structure and business practices
of the petroleum industry. Twelve major oil companies are
defendants in both actions. Supervision by a single judge will
therefore eliminate the posgibilities of duplicative discovery
and inconsistent pretrial rulings. Moreover, the presence of
defendants and claims that are involved in only one of the actions
does not prevent transfer because the transferee judge has
the broad discretion to design a pretrial program in which dis-
covery on any unique issues can proceed concurrently with dis-
covery on the common issues. See In re Republic National-
Realty Equities Securities Litigation, 382 F. Supp. 1403,
1405-06 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
Although movants contend that the Northern District
of Georgia is an appropriate transferee district because of ]
its convenient location, we find that the District of Connecti-
cut is the most suitable forum. The action in that district
is more advanced than the one in Kansas. Thus, Judge T. Emmet
Clarie, who is handling the Connecticut action, has gained a
familiarity with the complicated issues, the parties and their
tactics, which will enable him to supervise this litigation
toward its most just and expeditious termination.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on
the attached Schedule	A pending in the District	of Kansas be,
and the same hereby is, transferred to the District of Connecti-

Case MDL No. 150 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 5
- 4 «
cut and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honor-~
able T. Emmet Clarie for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the action listed
on Schedule A and pending in that district.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that transfer, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407, of State ofFlorida,	etc. v. Exxon Corp.,
et al., 5th Cir., Civil Action No. 74-3309 , be, and the same
hereby is, DENIED.
\ :

Case MDL No. 150 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 5
EY BPS
SCHEDULE A " DOCKET NO. 150
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
State	of Connecticut	wv. Amerada Hess - Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. H~-114
DISTRICT	OF KANSAS
State of Kansas, etc. v. Exxon Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 74-201-C5