In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings, Etc.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

The plaintiffs in these consolidated antitrust actions against several major oil companies are the Attorneys General of the States of Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon and Washington. They have filed motions for the certification of a plaintiff subclass consisting of all natural persons residing in their respective states who have purchased motor gasoline at retail within such states during the periods covered by the complaints. These motions have been extensively briefed and argued and submitted for decision. For reasons set forth in this memorandum, they are denied.

It has been obvious ever since these cases were filed that the principal goal of the plaintiffs is to accomplish a recovery of antitrust damages on behalf of their citizens who have been obliged to pay allegedly inflated prices at the retail gasoline stations. However, in 1977 the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 , 97 S.Ct. 2061 , 52 L.Ed.2d 707 , which held that an indirect purchaser from a person that violates the antitrust laws may not recover damages. Most of the automobile owners that use gasoline produced by the defendants make…