In re Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 150.

• Decision Date: 15 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 150.,150.
• Citation: 393 F. Supp. 1091
• Parties: In re PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

393 F. Supp. 1091

In re PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

No. 150.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

April 15, 1975.

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.

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.

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 Connecticut 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.

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...