IN RE: Wheat Farmers Antitrust Class Action Litigation

Case MDL No. 129 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 4
«A
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ° . Lo AY® MULTIDISTRIOT LITIGATION | oo
IN RE WHEAT FARMERS ANTITRUST ) nee Lk
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ) DOCEET NO. 123.
OPINION AND ORDER een
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 consists of one action in the Western
District of Oklahoma and three in the Northern District of Texas
arising out of the sales of wheat to the Soviet Union in the
summer of 1972. Plaintiffs in each action purport to represent
a class of wheat farmers who sold wheat on the open market and
® were injured as a consequence of defendants' alleged violation
of the federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs allege that the defend-
ant grain exporters knew prior to the time that plaintiffs har-
vested and sold their wheat that the Soviet Union would buy large
quantities of wheat in the United States and that this demand for
wheat would drive up the price. And plaintiffs allege that
defendants conspired to withhold this information from the public
in order to keep the price at which defendants could purchase
wheat from the farmers at a level lower than that anticipated
once the announcement of the Soviet purchase was made.
* Although Judge Weinfeld was unable to attend the Panel
hearing, he has, with the consent of all parties,
® participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 129 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 4
- 2 -—
@ Defendants Continental Grain Company and Cook Industries,Inc. move the Panel for an order transferring the Texas actions
to the Western District of Oklahoma for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407. All other defendants
support the motion and all plaintiffs agree that these actions
are appropriate for pretrial supervision by a single judge
pursuant to Section 1407, but they urge instead that the Northern
District of Texas is the most appropriate transferee forum.
We find that these actions raise common questions of
fact and that transfer to a single district under Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and pro-
mote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The only
controversy to be resolved is the selection of the transferee
e district. We are faced with only two choices in this litigation,
either the Western District of Oklahoma or the Northern District
of Texas, and neither district has factors overwhelmingly in
its favor. Indeed, either one could be described as an appropri-
ate transferee forum for this litigation. But upon weighing
the conveniences of all parties and witnesses, the location of
relevant documents, the stage of pretrial proceedings in the
several actions and the status of the civil dockets of the two
districts, we have concluded that the Western District of Oklahoma
would be best for all involved. Furthermore, based upon our prior
experience with class action antitrust litigation of this nature,
additional lawsuits can be expected. And it is our conviction
— that as the suits proliferate Oklahoma City will be more of a
° central location to the litigation as a whole than Amarillo, Texas.

Case MDL No. 129 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 4
. .
- 3 =
® IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions on the
attached Schedule A pending in the Northern District of Texas
be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Western District
of Oklahoma and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Frederick A. Daugherty for coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the action
pending in that district.
®
®

Case MDL No. 129 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 4
. \
® DOCKET NO. 129 SCHEDULE A
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Edgar W. Cleveland, et al. v. Clarence Civil Action
Palmby, et al. No. Civ-72-731
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Joe J. Berg, et al. v. Clarence Palmby, Civil Action
et al. No. 2-1311
Joe Zinzer v. Clarence Palmby and Civil Action
Continental Grain Co. No. 2-1309
John Spearman, et al. v. Clarence Civil Action
Palmby and Continental Grain Co. No. 2-1330