IN RE: Galveston, Texas, Oil Well Platform Disaster Litigation

Case MDL No. 63 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
oo | "HE JUDICIAL PANEL _ er Te
~ ON : Jy JA rem, oN SORNS 2 Ce .
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ~~ mtd Haney rhe Le
IN RE GALVESTON, TEXAS OIL WELL ) oc FES y er = :
PLATFORM DISASTER LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 3s \CLE TRAE : : }
| [ER LL . AN 4OPINION AND ORDER A
BEFORE ALFRED P., MURRAH, CHAIRMAN*, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Co REE
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH oo Co
S.. LORD, III*, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL EE
PER CURIAM
This litigation arises from an explosion and fire which - L.
occurred on an offshore oil well platform situated on the outer A
continental shelf approximately ten to: twelve miles from
’ Galveston, Texas. As a result of the explosion and ensuing
fire, nine men were killed and several were injured. The oil
well platform was severely damaged and a charter vessel used
to carry men and equipment from shore to the platform, the
Carryback, was badly burned. This litigation includes claims
for death and injury, for damages to the platform, damages to
the Carryback and for indemnification and subrogation rights ~ ol
as among the four principal defendants.’ Co oC :
: * Judges Murrah and Lord were unable to attend the hearing but
with the consent of all parties they have participated in this
decision on the basis of the transcript of the hearing and the
pleadings filed in this matter. .
1/ The major defendants in this litigation are Chambers & Kennedy, co co :
the owners and operators of the oil platform; Drilling Engineering, a :
Inc., the contract engineer in charge of the repairs being made to So
the platform at the time of the explosion; Chapman Contracting
Service Company, Inc., the contractors supplying labor for accom- EERE
plishing these repairs; and Dearborn Marine Service, Inc., the :
: owner and/or operator of the Carryback. Although some of these
defendants have instituted actions or third-party actions against
one or more of the defendants, they will generally be referred to :
as "defendants" for the purpose of this opinion.

Case MDL No. 63 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 5
® ,. |
This litigation presently encompasses nine actions, four
in the Southern District of Texas and five in the Western
District of Louisiana.2’/
On December 16, 1970, an order to show cause was entered .
directing the parties to show cause why these actions should
not be transferred to another district for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings and a hearing was held in
San Francisco on January 22, 1971 to consider the transfer of
any or all of these cases under Section 1407. The parties
positions relative to transfer is very clear. All four defendants
support transfer of the Louisiana cases to the Southern District
of Texas, preferably to the Galveston Division. The plaintiffs
® all oppose transfer of their cases to another district.
As is so often the case in common disaster litigation where
there are multiple defendants, each plaintiff sees his case as
: a simple one involving limited discovery and a short trial while
| the defendants contemplate extended discovery and a longer
trial. For this reason, it is not surprising that several of
the plaintiffs counsel claim they are nearly ready for trial
while the defendants contend that substantial discovery remains
- to be completed.
2] Three of these actions were originally brought in the
Eastern District of Louisiana but were transferred under
Section 1404(a) to the Western District of Louisiana and
another action, which was pending in the Western District
of Louisiana when the order to show cause was first issued,
Drilling Engineering, Inc. v. Chambers & Kennedy, was sub-
( sequently remanded to state court and is no longer before=~ the Panel.

Case MDL No. 63 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
® . : - 3 - |
If the Louisiana Plaintiffs are or soon will be ready
for trial, it is unlikely that the transfer of the Louisiana
Cases to the Southern District of Texas would substantially
benefit any of the parties. The Louisiana Plaintiffs contend
that their discovery is virtually complete and they certainly
would not benefit from such a transfer. While not necessarily
opposing transfer of the Louisiana Cases, none of the Texas
Plaintiffe claim that transfer of these cases would be bene-
ficial to them. 3/
Only the defendants favor transfer of the Louisiana
Cases and they urge that the continuation of pretrial
procedures without consolidation in all cases "will
® impose heavy and unnecessary burdens in time and expense on
the parties and their counsel. "%/ However, it seems that
the bulk of the remaining discovery relates primarily to
~ the intra-defendant litigation, all of which is now pending
in the Southern District of Texas. .
Although it is undoubtedly true the transfer of these cases
under Section 1407 would serve the convenience of the four
3/ Counsel for the only Texas plaintiffs responding to the
show cause order asserted that his case would be completed
in the near future if it was "not involved in any Multi-
district Litigation" (Response of Esther Marie Love, p. 2)
4/ Response of Chapman Contracting Service Company, Inc.,
’ 5 “rhe defendants are, of course, free to move for transferand consolidation of the Texas cases under 28 U.S.C. §1404(b)
[ and Rule 42(a), F.R.,Civ.P. See generally, Manual for Complexand Multidistrict Litigation, Section 5.2,

Case MDL No. 63 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 5
® |
- 4 =
defendants, this factor does not here outweigh the incon-
venience which transfer to the Southern District of Texas
. would impose on the Louisiana Plaintiffs. Under these
circumstances, and in view of the limited size of this
litigation, we decline to order transfer under Section 1407.
TRANSFER DENIED. :
®
°o

Case MDL No. 63 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
DOCKET No, 63 SCHEDULE A
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS :
In the Matter of the Complaint of Dearborn Civil Action
Marine Service, Inc., C-W-D, Inc. and No. 70-G~113
Thoroughbred Marine Service, Tnc. for
Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability
of the 0il Screw "Carryback"
Chambers & Kennedy ¥. Drilling €ivil Action
Engineering, Inc., et al. No. 70-H-713
Webster Barnwell Armstrong, III, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Chambers & Kennedy, et al. No. 70-H-1171
Lucille Monk, et al. wv. Chambers & Civil Action
Kennedy, et al. : No. 71-G-3
® WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANARoy Melancon v., Drilling Engineering, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 16404
Ilaine B, Campbell, etc. v. Drilling Civil Action
Engineering, Inc., et al. No. 16405
Joyce C. Nunez, etc. v. Drilling Civil Action
~~ Engineering, Inc., et al. No. 16406
Clemille Credeur & Beulah Hardin v. Civil Action
Travelers Insurance Company, et al. No, 15878
Leo Meaux, etc. v. Chapman Contracting Civil Action
Service Co., Inc., et al. No. 16305