296 F.Supp.2d 1370 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2003), MDL 1568, In re Parcel Tanker Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation
|Docket Nº:||MDL 1568.|
|Citation:||296 F.Supp.2d 1370|
|Party Name:||In re PARCEL TANKER SHIPPING SERVICES ANTITRUST LITIGATION|
|Case Date:||December 12, 2003|
|Court:||United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation|
Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, [*] Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, BRUCE M. SELYA,* JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ and ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., Judges of the Panel.
JOHN F. KEENAN, Acting Chairman.
This litigation presently consists of six actions: three actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, two actions in the District of Connecticut and one action in
the Southern District of Texas. 1 Before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, by defendants 2 to centralize the actions in this litigation in the Southern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Most responding parties agree that centralization is appropriate. 3 Plaintiff in the Texas indirect purchaser potential tag-along action supports centralization in this Texas district, while the Connecticut and Pennsylvania plaintiffs and potential tag-along plaintiffs suggest the district in which they have brought suit as transferee forum.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Connecticut will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share factual questions relating to the existence, scope and effect of an alleged conspiracy to fix the price of international shipments of liquid chemicals in the United States. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent or repetitive pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the District of Connecticut is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. We note that i) of the currently known related actions in this docket, four actions are pending in the Connecticut district, ii) one defendant is located there and documents and witnesses will likely be found there, and iii) the Connecticut district has a relatively favorable caseload for accepting this assignment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP