In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Anti., 1566.
| Decision Date | 06 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 1566.,1566. |
| Parties | In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
This litigation consists of the eight actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in four districts: five actions in the Northern District of California, and one action each in the Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California.1 The matter is before the Panel upon the motion of ten defendants variously sued in one or more of the eight actions: CenterPoint Energy, Inc.; Coral Energy Resources, L.P.; Duke Energy Corp.; Duke Energy North America, LLC; Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC; Encana Corp; Reliant Energy, Inc; Reliant Services, Inc; Reliant Resources, Inc.; and Kathleen Zanaboni. These parties move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions in the Northern District of California. Movants submit, however, that i) the seven MDL-1566 actions currently brought as putative class actions present recusal issues under 28 U.S.C. § 455 for any California resident judge, and ii) future, similar lawsuits that might be filed on behalf of residents of other western states would present the same recusal issue for a transferee judge resident of one of those states. Accordingly, movants submit that this litigation should be assigned to a judge from outside California and its neighboring states who would sit in movants' suggested Northern District of California transferee district pursuant to an intercircuit assignment under 28 U.S.C. § 292. All plaintiffs oppose transfer. If the Panel does determine to order centralization, then plaintiffs in five of the actions would favor selection of the Eastern District of California as transferee district, while plaintiffs in the three remaining actions would support centralization in the District of Nevada before Judge Philip M. Pro, to whom an earlier antitrust litigation involving aspects of the California natural gas market was assigned, MDL-1406, In re California Retail Natural Gas and Electricity Antitrust Litigation, 150 F.Supp.2d 1383 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.2001).
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 Nevada of all actions except the Eastern District of California action will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Defendants in all actions are alleged to have conspired and acted in ways that artificially increased the price of natural gas paid by California consumers during 2000 and 2001. We are persuaded, nonetheless, that proceedings in the Eastern District of California action, which is the only action in this docket not brought as a class action, are sufficiently advanced to warrant its exclusion from transfer. Centralization under Section 1407 of the other MDL-1566 actions, however, remains necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect to questions of class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Plaintiffs in the actions to be centralized have suggested that a decision in their favor on pending motions to remand to state court may obviate the need for transfer. We note, however, that such motions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir.1990); In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 368 F.Supp. 812, 813 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.). Such an approach here has the additional advantage of streamlining treatment of the remand issue.
We are persuaded that this litigation has a strong California nexus, but that the appropriate transferee forum for centralized pretrial proceedings is a district adjacent to California still within the same circuit, because of potential recusal issues currently affecting the assignment of the class actions in this litigation to a California resident judge. We are not persuaded, however, of a need to limit our transferee judge selection on the basis of the hypothetical filing and contents of future actions not now before us. By centralizing this litigation in the District of Nevada before Judge Pro, we are able to entrust this important assignment to an able jurist who can steer this litigation on an expeditious course, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dynegy Mktg. v. Multiut Corp..
...they obtained in connection with ongoing multi-district litigation prompted by the FERC report, see In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 290 F.Supp.2d 1376 (J.P.M.L.2003), supported their contention that the prices Dynegy charged for natural gas were “artificially influen......
-
In re New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. Sales
...Police Interceptor Prods. Liab. Litig., 229 F.Supp.2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L.2002); see also In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 290 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L.2003); In re Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representatives' Overtime Pay Litig., 196 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1375 (......
-
Table of cases
...Liquid Asphalt Cases, In re,487 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1973), 402, 450, 457 Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., In re ,290 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2003), 272, 274 Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liability Litig., In re,678 F.3d 409, 420 (6th Cir. 2012), judgmen......
-
Table of Cases
...re W. Liquid Asphalt Cases, 487 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1973), 307, 348, 356, 366 In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2003), 215, 216, 218 In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 212 F.R.D. 231 (D. Del. 2002), 206, 208, 227, 228, 229, 230, 235-3......
-
Management of Multidistrict Indirect Purchaser Litigation
...23 and the MDL Panel cannot consolidate criminal cases 24 or 18 . See In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (transferring a number of cases but concluding that one action was “sufficiently advanced to warrant its exclusion fr......
-
Chapter VIII. Management of Multidistrict Indirect Purchaser Litigation
...holding that it had progressed too far for transfer to be appropriate. In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2003). In the second antitrust case, the Panel denied § 1407 transfer because of the pendency of § 1404(a) motions, which, if granted......