In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - Mdl 1869 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    )
    In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE        )
    ANTITRUST LITIGATION                     )
    )                  MDL Docket No. 1869
    )                  Miscellaneous No. 07-0489 (PLF)
    This document relates to:                )
    )
    ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES                )
    __________________________________________)
    OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS LLC, et al.,      )
    )
    Plaintiffs,                 )
    )
    v.                                )                  Civil Action No. 11-1049 (PLF)
    )
    UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., et al.,       )
    )
    Defendants.                 )
    __________________________________________)
    ORDER
    For the reasons set forth in the opinion issued this same day, it is hereby
    ORDERED that the Rail Freight Defendants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Supporting Statement of Points and Authorities [Dkt. No. 1010] is
    GRANTED;1 it is
    FURTHER ORDERED that the Oxbow Defendants’ Motion for Certification
    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Supporting Statement of Points and Authorities, Oxbow
    1
    Unless otherwise specified, citations to docket entries refer to the first above
    captioned matter, In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869,
    Miscellaneous No. 07-0489.
    Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., Civil Action No. 11-1049 [Dkt. No. 220] is
    GRANTED; it is
    FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Court’s
    February 19, 2021 Order [Dkt. No. 1007] (“the Order”) denying Defendants’ Motion to Exclude
    Interline-Related Communications from Consideration for Class Certification or Any Other
    Purpose Prohibited by 49 U.S.C. § 10706 [Dkt. No. 417] and Defendants’ Motion and
    Memorandum of Law Regarding the Interpretation and Application of 49 U.S.C. § 10706 [Dkt.
    No. 927] is hereby certified for immediate appeal; and it is
    FURTHER ORDERED that the Order is amended to include the following
    statement: This Order is appropriate for immediate appeal because it involves controlling
    questions of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and immediate
    appeal of these issues may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.
    SO ORDERED.
    /s/
    PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
    United States District Judge
    DATE: June 15, 2021
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Misc. No. 2007-0489

Judges: Judge Paul L. Friedman

Filed Date: 6/15/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/15/2021