1:77-F-00322•IN RE: Helicopter Crash Near Cameron, Louisiana, on April 23, 1976
IN RE: Helicopter Crash Near Cameron, Louisiana, on April 23, 1976
1:77-F-00322Jpml05.05.2015
Gesamter Gesetzestext
. Case MDL No. 322 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 4 ~ SUTRA DANTE Bi RIT eT eT SRD BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON STUED CIES MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ) IN RE HELICOPTER CRASH NEAR ) CAMERON, LOUISIANA, ON ) DOCKET NO. 322 APRIL 23, 1976 ) - 1) OPINION AND ORDER BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWINA, ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY, AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL PER CURIAM - This litigation consists of eight actions pending in two districts: five in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and three in the Eastern District of Texas. The eight actions stem from the deaths of seven individuals in a helicopter crash on April 23, 1976, in the Gulf of Mexico near the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Principal defendants include the helicopter's owner (in- volved in all eight actions), its manufacturer (involved in seven actions), and the employer of the decedents (involved in four Louisiana actions and one Texas action). In each action, plaintiffs in essence allege that defendants’ negligence caused the crash and that therefore plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages under the Death on the High a _—
Case MDL No. 322 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 4 ~ _, Seas Act, the Jones Act and/or state wrongful death statutes, Because it appeared that these eight actions might be appropriate for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1407, the Panel issued an order to show cause why these actions should not be transferred under Section 1407 to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the five Louisiana actions and the defendants that have responded favor transfer of all actions in this litigation to the Eastern District of Louisana. Plaintiffs in two of the Texas actions oppose transfer. Although we recognize the existence of common questions of fact among these actions concerning the cause or causes of the heli- copter crash, we find that transfer under Section 1407 would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Accordingly, the order to show cause is vacated. At the outset, we observe that the parties favoring transfer in this litigation have focused their arguments on why the Eastern District of Louisiana would be an appropriate transferee forum, but have offered no argument as to whether the eight actions involved should indeed be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. 1/ see Rule 8, R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 258-59 (1975).
. Case MDL No. 322 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 4 RE _ 3. We are advised that four of the five Louisiana actions have been consolidated and that the trial court in the con- solidated actions has set a final pretrial conference for mid-April and scheduled May 11, 1978, as the date for commencement of trial. The claims in the fifth Louisiana action are subsumed in the claims in the amended complaint in one of the four consolidated actions. Moreover, we are informed that one of the Texas actions is set for trial on April 10, 1978. Regarding one of the two other Texas actions, counsel has stated that the guestion of liability might never arise because of important threshhold issues involving the standing of the plaintiff parent in that action to sue and the potentially preclusory effect of a previous settlement agreement executed by the decedent's spouse. Transcript at 84. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that transfer of this particular litigation under Section 1407 will further the purposes of the statute. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the show cause order previously entered concerning the actions listed on the following Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, VACATED.
Case MDL No. 322 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 4 of 4 SCHEDULE A -- MDL-322 EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Civil Action No. Carolyn Ann Coleman v. Dolphin 77-1644-SEC.E International, Inc., et al. Catherine Sue Taylor v. Dolphin 77-1834-SEC.B International Inc., et al. Cleveland Taylor v. Dolphin 76-2573-SEC.E International, Inc., et al. Anna L. Ripkowski Kroll v. Petroleum 77-1645-SEC.E Helicopters, Inc., et al. Frieda Nell Korn Poole v. Petroleum 77-1646-SEC.E Helicopters, Inc., et al. EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Jim Ailey v. Bell Helicopter S-77-31-CA International, Inc., et al. Mrs. Maxie Dunaway Vv. Dolphin M~77-31-CA International, Inc., et al. Mary E. Barger v. Petroleum B-77-180~CA Helicopters, Inc., et al.
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.