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. ) __________________________________________) OPINION Defendants in Rail Freight MDL No. 1869 and defendants in Oxbow move pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify this Court’s order on the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii) for interlocutory appeal. Defendants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Supporting Statement of Points and Authorities (“Def. Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 1010]; see also Defendants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Supporting Statement of Points and Authorities, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., Civil Action No. 11-1049 [Dkt. No. 220].1 Plaintiffs in Rail Freight MDL No. 1869 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 (“Rail Freight MDL No. 1869” or “MDL No. 1869”). Because the and plaintiffs in Oxbow oppose the motions. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (“Pl. Opp.”) [Dkt. No. 1013]; see also Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., Civil Action No. 11-1049 [Dkt. No. 223]. Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, the relevant case law, relevant portions of the record in this case, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant defendants’ motions.2 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY These cases have been the subject of numerous prior opinions, which recount the factual and procedural history at length. See In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig. (“Rail Freight I”), 587 F. Supp. 2d 27, 29-31 (D.D.C. 2008); In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge briefs filed in Oxbow in relation to the pending motion appear nearly identical to the corresponding briefs filed in Rail Freight, the Court’s opinion cites only to the briefing on the Rail Freight docket. 2 The Court has reviewed the following documents in connection with the pending motion filed in Rail Freight MDL No. 1869: Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“Second Am. Class Action Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 324]; Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Interline-Related Communications from Consideration for Class Certification or Any Other Purpose Prohibited by 49 U.S.C. § 10706 (“Def. Class Cert. Mem. Exclude”) [Dkt. No. 420]; August 26, 2020 Hearing Transcript (“Aug. 26, 2020 Hr’g Tr.”) [Dkt. No. 985]; Defendants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Supporting Statements of Points and Authorities (“Def. Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 1010]; Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals