Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01648/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01648-90/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE RUBBER CHEMICALS ANTITRUST

LITIGATION,

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

C-05-2224

 /

MDL Docket No. C-04-1648 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS IN

CATERPILLAR INC., ET AL., V.

CROMPTON CORPORATION, ET AL.,

CASE NO. 05-2224, TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED

On April 25, 2008, the Court ordered plaintiffs Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”), Carlisle

Companies Inc., Carlisle Corp., Carlisle Syntec Inc., Carlisle Tire & Wheel Co., Carlisle

Engineered Products, Inc., and Carlisle Power Transmission Products, Inc. (collectively,

“Carlisle”), inter alia, to participate in the preparation of a Joint Status Conference

Statement, to be filed no later than May 16, 2008, and to attend the May 23, 2008 Status

Conference; the Court further ordered that if Caterpillar and Carlisle were of the view that

Case No. 05-2224 had been resolved in its entirety, Caterpillar and Carlisle were not

obligated to so participate and attend, provided that, no later than May 16, 2008, Caterpillar

and Carlisle filed either a separate statement indicating said individual case had been so

resolved or a dismissal or other document indicating that all claims pleaded therein had

been resolved and that closure of said individual case was appropriate.

Caterpillar and Carlisle did not participate in the filing of a Joint Status Conference

Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 683 Filed 05/27/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Statement, failed to appear at the May 23, 2008 Status Conference, and, to date, have

failed to file any response to the Court’s order of April 25, 2008.

The docket indicates Caterpillar and Carlisle’s claims against defendant Crompton

Corporation have been dismissed, but is silent as to the disposition, if any, of Caterpillar

and Carlisle’s claims against the other defendant.

Accordingly, Caterpillar and Carlisle are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in

writing and no later than June 6, 2008, why the claims against the remaining defendant in

Case No. C-05-2224 should not be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-md-01648-MMC Document 683 Filed 05/27/08 Page 2 of 2