IN RE: Gas Vent Pipe Antitrust Litigation

| Case MDL No. 171 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 2
ele IN RE GAS VENT PIPE ANTITRUST LITIGATION . 799 :B Cite as 380 F.Supp. 799 (1074) .
: | I 2. Couris ¢2277.2 :Ey In re GAS VENT PIPE ANTI Issue of propriety of transfer of ac- .
TRUST LITIGATIGN. - tions, in multidistriet litigation, from
C x No. 171. Central District of California to North- :. . ern District of California, was not moot - :
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. although all actions pursuant to desig-
July 31, 1974. : nation were currently before same judge, \where possibility existed that additional :
: : actions with similar allegations might J
: . CL be filed in jurisdictions not encompassed _ -
_ Proceedings were instituted OR ap- within Circuit, and thus transfer order 3 Jplication for transfer of actions In multi- would insure that aj tag-along actions Ledistrict litigation. The Judicial Panel on would also bo assigned to same judge. |Multidistrict Litigation held that actions 28 US.C.A. §§ 202(b), 1407.	Involving an alleged conspiracy among
pipe producers to fix prices for gas vent 3. Courts 277.2 :
: pipe in violation of federal antitrust laws Even though either Northern or
involved common questions of fact, justi- Central District of California could be
fying transfer of actions pending in Cen- described as appropriate transferee fo-
] tral District of California to Northern rum, balance favored Northern District }District of California; that issue of pro- of California, where majority of actions : i
priety of transfer of action from Central Were already pending in that district and
District of California to Northern Dis- it appeared that preirial proceedings in CC
: trict of California was not moot although - those actions had progressed further than )
: all actions pursuant to designation were those in actions in Central District. 28 :: currently before same judge; and that U.S.C.A. § 1407.
: even though either Northern or Central
: ! District of California could be described ————e oo	! ET as appropriate transferee form, balance : :
2 ~ favored Noithern District of California, OPINION AND ORDER	i . where majority of actions were already
@ pending in that,district and itappeared Before ALFRED P. MURRAIX, iot that pretrial proceedings in those actions Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM,== had progressed further than those in EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A.
bi actions in central district. ROBSON, WILLIAM J. BECKERF,
i : : i JOSEPH S. LORD, 111%, and STANLEY :i Order accordingly. A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel. :
) : PER CURIAM. : | :L. Courts €=277.2 : This litigation consists of three actions :
: Actions involving an alleged conspir- in the Novtheérn District of California :
acy among pipe producers to fix prices and two in the Central District of Cali- ) So
: for gas vent pipe in violation of federal fornia involving an alleged conspiracy: antitrust laws involved cemmon questions ameng pipe producers to fix prices for
: "of fact, justifying transfer of actions pas vent pipe in vislalion of Lie federal :
. pending in Central District of California opting taws, Plaintiffs in each action )
} to Northern District of California toy port bo represent a class of purchasers
© best geive the convenience of the paulics or users of gas vent pipe and each de- E
and witnesses and promote the just and fendant pipe producer in the Los Angeles
efficient conduct of litigation. 28 U.S. actions is also a defendant in one or
C.A. § 1407. more of the San Francisco actions,
} * Although Judges Murrali, Becker aud Tord with the consent of all parties, pacticipated in
were not present at the hearing, they hinve, this decision, - .
J t

po Co
I : . Case MDL No. 171 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 2
90 agh PEDDRAL SUTPLEMENT
“A (11 Defendants in one of the activns power lo conduct joint preirial confor
C to : pending in the Central Distriel of Celi- ences amongst all portics and bo coord	Co fornia move the Panel for an evder trons- nate or consolidale the Tbigants’ profviod
ferring the two actions pending in that pregrams as he sees fit.
district to the Northern District of Cal :
fornia pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1407. [3] The parties disagres over which
No party opposes braunsler, but certnin district is the most appropriate trav.
Los Angeles plaintiffs contend that the fovee district for this liligation. Either :
a Central District of California is the mast the Northern or Central Distriat of ali:
~~ appropriate transferee forum, We find fornia could he described as the appropi-
: that these achions raise common ques ate {ransfevee form, but en balines we
tions of fact and that trawsfer of the Savor the Northern District of Califor
actions pending in the Central District min. The majority of the actions awe ol 7
of California to the Northern District of 1624 pending in thal district and it ap- Lo
California will best serve the convenience “pears thai the pretrial proceedings in
of the parties and witnesses and promote Hose actions have progressed further
the just and efficient conduct of the hiti- . than those in the actions in the Central
: gation. District.
[2] Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 202(h), It is thovefore ovdered that the actions
the Chief Judge of the Ninth Cirenit listed on the atiached Schedule A ponding
designated Judge William Matthew in the Central District of California	be,
: Byrne, Jr. who is assigned the Los An- and {hie same herchy ave, transferred io
: So eles actions, to sit in the Northern Dis- the Northern District of California aud. To
i . trict of California to also handie all the with the consent of that court, assiyned
; : companion actions in that district for to the Honorable William Matthew
. to purposes	of pretrial proceedings and iri- Byrne, Jr. sitting by designation. fur
ES : al. Although all parties agree that the. coordinated ov consolidated pretrial pre
£0 : criteria for transfer of these actions un- ceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447
C nn der Section 1407 are clearly satisfied, with the actions already pending in Lint	: Laos Angeles plaintiffs suggest that, since district and listed on Schedule A. :
sean +o all the actions are now before one judge, .
: : the issue of the propriety of a Section SCHEDULE A
1407 transfer is meol. This argument, Horthern	District of Cafifsrnia
! howaover, {ails to recognize the possibility University Mechanical & Engi .
that additional actions with similar sile- eS marten Stat Front Git Action
: . gations might be filed in jurisdictions ucts Coro. et af. fo. C—71-949-SAN
Po © not encompassed within the Ninth Cir- 8amas, Inc. v. Amsrican Civil Action ~-
i . cuit. Thus, au order at this time pup. Hota Products Comp, ot A. Ho. C-71-930-5AW
i suant to Section 1407 will evsure that ail Controls ican vs civil Action. toag-slong actions will also be assigned Products Corp, et al fio. C-74-721 :
: to Judge Byrne. Sce In ro IBY Per. Coated! District ofCaiiforniz
: ipheral TDP Devices Antitrost Liliga. powdican Housing Guits, et ol Co
H Co tion, 3%5 F.Supp. 1279 (Jud Pandiulp vo Amedicon Metal Products Givi Action :
. : Lit, 1974). In addition, 5 Scetion 1407 C00 Se 73248 :
- “order will elearly eatablish Judge Byrne's Shuals on ome BAA
®‘ R . . h+
: ’ : - } “ he	he . PE ’ .