Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionlitigationtrialmotiontrustantitrustdocket

litigationhearingtrialmotiontrustwillantitrustdocket

Related Cases

In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation, 910 F.Supp. 696, 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,226

Facts

The matter before the Panel consisted of motions for transfer in four interrelated antitrust dockets involving alleged price fixing in the marketing and sale of lysine, corn syrup, and citric acid. The plaintiffs in various districts sought to centralize these actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings, arguing that they involved common questions of fact. However, the Panel found that while there were some commonalities, the differences among the actions were significant enough to deny the motions for centralization.

The matter before the Panel consists of motions for transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, in four different, albeit interrelated, antitrust dockets involving alleged price fixing in the marketing and sale of three separate corn products or derivatives.

Issue

Whether the antitrust actions involving corn products should be centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

Rule

The Panel applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which allows for the transfer of cases for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings if it serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promotes the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

Analysis

The Panel analyzed the motions and determined that while the actions involved common questions of fact, the differences among the three categories of antitrust actions were substantial. The actions involved different products, different manufacturers, and different classes of purchasers, which led the Panel to conclude that centralization was not appropriate. The Panel emphasized that the degree of factual commonality did not rise to a level that warranted centralization before a single judge.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that the five actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois under Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

Conclusion

The Panel denied the motions for centralization, concluding that the differences among the actions outweighed the similarities and that the actions should proceed in their respective districts.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion in MDL–1088 for centralization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 of the actions listed on the attached Schedule D be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendants, as the Panel denied the motions for centralization, allowing the cases to remain in their original jurisdictions.

The Panel has also been notified that six related lysine antitrust actions have been filed—three in the Northern District of Illinois, two in the Northern District of Alabama and one in the Eastern District of Missouri.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So.3d 867, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1514

Sylvester v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1126

In re Marriage of Gonzalez, 57 Cal.App.3d 736, 129 Cal.Rptr. 566

Masiello v. Perini Corp., 394 Mass. 842, 477 N.E.2d 1020

Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341