In re Concrete Pipe

Decision Date28 August 1969
Docket NumberNo. 25.,25.
PartiesIn re West of the Rockies CONCRETE PIPE Antitrust Cases.
CourtJudicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

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.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On June 4, 1969 the majority of the defendants1 in the State of Utah case filed a motion with the Panel to transfer that case from the District of Utah to the Central District of California for assignment to Judge Martin Pence2 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. After notice to all parties, a hearing was held in Denver on July 25, 1969 and all parties presented their arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed transfer.

The moving defendants make a strong argument in support of their motion to transfer this case for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. They first point out that the West of the Rockies Pipe litigation involves more than 100 actions and more than 350 plaintiffs. These cases, originally filed in eight different district courts within the Ninth Circuit, have all been assigned to Judge Pence and he has actively supervised coordinated pretrial proceedings with the result that the earlier cases have now been settled.

We thought that this litigation was at an end3 but the actions listed on Schedule A were all filed within the past year. With the exception of the State of Utah case these new cases will be automatically assigned to Judge Pence and their discovery will be coordinated by him. Judge Pence's familiarity with this litigation, the prior discovery and the problems relating thereto, is unequalled and we believe that the assignment of the State of Utah case to him will clearly serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of these cases.4

Since Judge Martin Pence has been assigned to many districts within the Ninth Circuit, coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the State of Utah case could be achieved by transferring that case to any of those districts. We believe the Central District of California is the most appropriate transferee court because original criminal proceedings were held there, substantial discovery and document production has occurred there, the majority of the new cases were filed there and many of the corporate defendants have their principal place of business in the Los Angeles area.

Transfer of this case for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings is strongly opposed by the two local defendantsUtah Concrete Pipe Company and W. R. White Company.5 The basis for their opposition is the assertion that they have had minimal sales outside of the State of Utah and were not named in any other civil action or in any of the indictments. They conclude that there can be no questions of fact common to their case and any of the other actions. This argument overlooks the fact that they and the other defendants are charged with participating in a combination and conspiracy to (1) submit collusive and rigged bids, (2) to allocate and divide orders and (3) to refrain from competing — not only within the State of Utah but within the entire Western Area. The existence and nature of the alleged conspiracy and the part these two defendants played in it are common questions of paramount importance.

The local defendants also contend that the transfer of the claims against them to a distant forum would impose an unjustifiable financial burden on them. We are satisfied that any additional burden will be offset by the savings from and convenience of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings directed by the transferee judge. In re Antibiotic Drugs, 295 F.Supp. 1402, 1404 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1968). The transferee court may of course exercise its discretion in scheduling pretrial proceedings in a manner which will protect the legitimate interests of all defendants in the apportionment of the cost of litigation. In re Concrete Pipe Litigation (East of the Rockies) 302 F.Supp. 244 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit., May 23, 1969).

In sum, it is clear that the transfer of this case to the Central District of California and its assignment to Judge Martin Pence6 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings will serve the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses in this litigation and will promote the just and efficient conduct of these actions.

It is therefore ordered that the State of Utah case listed on Schedule A be and the same is hereby transferred to the Central District of California and with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • American Pipe and Construction Co v. Utah 8212 1195
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 16 d3 Janeiro d3 1974
    ...more than 100 actions arising out of the same factual situation in the Central District of California before Judge Pence. In re Concrete Pipe, 303 F.Supp. 507, 508—509. In November 1969 the petitioners moved for an order pursuant to Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(c)(1) that the suit could not be mai......
  • AMERICAN PIPE & CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UTAH
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 16 d3 Janeiro d3 1974
    ...100 actions arising out of the same factual situation in the Central District of California before Judge Pence. In re Concrete Pipe, 303 F.Supp. 507, 508-509 (JPML 1969). In November, 1969, the petitioners moved for an order pursuant to Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(c)(1) that the suit could not be......
  • In re Western Liquid Asphalt, 24.
    • United States
    • Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
    • 23 d5 Janeiro d5 1970
    ...have been transferred under section 1407: In re Water Meters, 304 F.Supp. 873 (J.P.M.L. October 10, 1969), In re Concrete Pipe (West), 303 F.Supp. 507 (J.P.M.L. August 28, 1969), In re Admission Tickets, 302 F.Supp. 1339 (J.P. M.L. August 15, 1969), In re Concrete Pipe (East), 302 F.Supp. 2......
  • United States v. Dye
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • 3 d3 Setembro d3 1969

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT