Case Name: In re EXTERIOR SIDING AND ALUMINUM COIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION (M.D.L. No. 454) Alside, Inc.; Alcan Aluminum Corporation; Aluminum Company of America; Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kaiser Aluminum & Sales, Inc.; Mastic Corporation; Reynolds Metals Company; Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.; and United States Steel Corporation, petitioners
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1983-03-28
Citations: 705 F.2d 980
Docket Number: No. 82-1105
Parties: In re EXTERIOR SIDING AND ALUMINUM COIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION (M.D.L. No. 454) Alside, Inc.; Alcan Aluminum Corporation; Aluminum Company of America; Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kaiser Aluminum & Sales, Inc.; Mastic Corporation; Reynolds Metals Company; Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.; and United States Steel Corporation, petitioners.
Judges: Before LAY, Chief Judge, and HEANEY, BRIGHT, ROSS, McMILLIAN, ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges, en banc.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 705
Pages: 980–980

Head Matter:
In re EXTERIOR SIDING AND ALUMINUM COIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION (M.D.L. No. 454) Alside, Inc.; Alcan Aluminum Corporation; Aluminum Company of America; Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kaiser Aluminum & Sales, Inc.; Mastic Corporation; Reynolds Metals Company; Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.; and United States Steel Corporation, petitioners.
No. 82-1105.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 1983.
Decided March 28, 1983.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and HEANEY, BRIGHT, ROSS, McMILLIAN, ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges, en banc.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Clerk is directed to file the Supplemental Appendix tendered by Petitioners.
The petition for writ of mandamus. is denied by an equally divided Court.
HEANEY, Circuit Judge, with whom BRIGHT, ROSS and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting.
We would grant the petition for mandamus. The transferee judge not only ignored the prior opinions of the transferor judge in certifying a class, but he certified a class infinitely broader than the one the plaintiffs had last requested be certified by the transferor judge. There is no record support for the broader class certified.