Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc.
This text of 588 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the entire Panel
This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, one each in the Northern District of Illinois and the District of Minnesota.1
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which the agricultural fertilizer potash was sold in the United States in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate du-plicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Two defendants are headquartered in that district, and relevant documents and witnesses may be located there. The majority of the known actions in this docket are already [1365]*1365pending there, and Judge Ruben Castillo has consolidated the actions pending before him.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action pending in the District of Minnesota is transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Ruben Castillo for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
Judge Motz and Judge Vratil did not participate in the disposition of this matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
588 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gages-fertilizer-grain-inc-v-agrium-inc-jpml-2008.