Arandell Corp. et al

Filing 331

REMAND ORDER re MDL 1566, Remanding Case to the Western District of Wisconsin. Signed by MDL Panel on 6/4/2019., Case terminated. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case MDL No. 1566 Document 314 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 1566

REMAND ORDER

Before the Panel: Various defendants1 in the two actions listed on the attached Schedule A
(Arandell and NewPage) move under Panel Rule 10.2 to vacate our order, entered at the suggestion of
the transferee judge, conditionally remanding the claims against them to the Western District of
Wisconsin.2 Plaintiffs in those actions oppose the motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, we deny defendants’ motion to vacate. “In
considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great weight to the transferee
judge’s determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the
transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings.” In re Holiday Magic Sec.
& Antitrust Litig., 433 F. Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977). We accord such weight here. These cases
have been pending in the MDL for a number of years. Pretrial proceedings to date have been extensive,
and have included significant motion practice, substantial discovery, and lengthy appeals. The
Honorable Robert Clive Jones, who has been overseeing the MDL since June 2015, has made a
reasoned determination that Section 1407 remand is appropriate for the completion of remaining pretrial
proceedings (including class certification) and trial.
In their motion to vacate, defendants do not disagree that the transferor court should oversee the
remaining proceedings. They object only to the timing of remand, asking that remand be postponed
until after the resolution of all matters regarding a pending appeal3 and plaintiffs’ settlements with
certain other defendants. Indeed, they appear to suggest that the pendency of the appeal has divested
the district court (whether it be the transferee court or the transferor court) of jurisdiction to adjudicate
plaintiffs’ claims against them. But Section 1407 does not empower the Panel to decide questions going

1

These defendants are: e prime, inc.; Northern States Power Company; Xcel Energy Inc.; The
Williams Companies, Inc.; Williams Merchant Services Company, LLC; Williams Gas Marketing, Inc.;
Dynegy Illinois Inc.; DMT G.P. L.L.C.; Dynegy GP Inc.; Dynegy Marketing and Trade; Cantera Natural
Gas, Inc.; Cantera Resources, Inc.; CMS Energy Resources Management Company; CMS Field Services
Inc.; CMS Energy Corporation; and Cantera Gas Company.
2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) (authorizing the Panel to separate and remand any claim or claims in
an action).
3

See Arandell Corp. v. CenterPoint Energy Servs., Inc., 900 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2018).

Case MDL No. 1566 Document 314 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 3

-2to the jurisdiction of a case. See In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990). Following remand, defendants
are free to argue to the Western District of Wisconsin court as to the significance, if any, of the appeal
and the pending settlements with respect to the course of remaining pretrial proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the claims in Arandell and
NewPage against defendants e prime, inc.; Northern States Power Company; Xcel Energy Inc.; The
Williams Companies, Inc.; Williams Merchant Services Company, LLC; Williams Gas Marketing, Inc.;
Dynegy Illinois Inc.; DMT G.P. L.L.C.; Dynegy GP Inc.; Dynegy Marketing and Trade; Cantera Natural
Gas, Inc.; Cantera Resources, Inc.; CMS Energy Resources Management Company; CMS Field Services
Inc.; CMS Energy Corporation; and Cantera Gas Company are remanded to the Western District of
Wisconsin.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor
Karen K. Caldwell

Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry
Nathaniel M. Gorton

Case MDL No. 1566 Document 314 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

District of Nevada
ARANDELL CORP., ET AL. v. XCEL ENERGY INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:07-01019 (W.D. Wisconsin C.A. No. 3:07-00076)
NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC. v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:09-00915 (W.D. Wisconsin C.A. No. 3:09-00240)

MDL No. 1566