IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Malaga, Spain, on Septermber 13, 1982

Case MDL No. 530 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 3. : TC TL IN
MULT, TERT LE TAT TT
) [=r
| J -t 18 Lo
PATRIA	© id Por :
Cilihur pe PL tek :
DOCKET NO. 530 oT
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT MALAGA, SPAIN, ON SEPTEMEER 13, . JRC1982 Co
TRANSFER ORDER* oo
Presently before the Panel are two niotions, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 81407, to transfer the actions listed on the
attached Schedule A for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. One motion, brought by defendant Spantax,
S.A. (Spantax), seeks centralization in the Southern District : CL
of New York. The second motion, brought by plaintiffs in :
one Eastern District of New York action, seeks centralization .
in the Eastern District of New York. o
All responding parties agree on the desirability of
or do not oppose transfer... The only dispute concerns the Co
selection of the transferee district. Spantax and certain
responding defendants favor centralization in the Southern
District of New York; 27 plaintiffs, including several inactions not on the motions,~" urge centralization in the
Eastern District of New York. Still other plaintiffs are
on record as preferring whichever of the two districts can
most expeditiously handle the litigation.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
the Panel finds that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that centralization of these actions under Section
1407 in the Eastern District of New York will best serve oe
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions
share numerous factual questions concerning the cause or oo
causes of an airplane crash in Malaga, Spain. Centralization
under Section 1407 is therefore necessary in order to prevent
duplication of discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings,
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. EE
* Judge Edward S. Northrop took no part in the decision
of this matter. CL
1/ Since the motion for transfer was filed with the Panel,
several related actions were commenced. These actions will
be treated as potential tag-along actions in accordance
with Rules 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 278-280
(1981).

Case MDL No. 530 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 3
-2—
'@ Although either the Eastern or Southern District of
New York could be considered an appropriate transferee district
for this litigation, we conclude that the Eastern District
of New York is preferable because a majority of the actions
is pending there.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and
pending in the Southern District of New York be, and the
same hereby are, transferred to the Eastern District of
New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Eugene H. Nickerson for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending
in that district and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
N ¥PERI A El
Condit @. G 7,fs“lf /
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

Case MDL No. 530S¢hedulen® Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 3
* MDL-530 -- In re Air Crash Disaster at Malaga, Spain, on
September	13, 1982
'@® :
Eastern District of New York
Kira Zamaryonov, et al. v. Spantax Airlines, et al.,
C.A. No. B82 Civ 3049 (EHN) ;
Joseph Dalessio v. SpantaX Airlines, S.2., ex &...
C.A. No. 82 Civ. 2849 (EBN)
Kevin Gerritt, etc. v. Spantax, S.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 3020 (EHN)
Joseph Figarsky, etc. Vv. Spantax, S.A., €t al.,
C.A. No. B2 Civ 3019 (EHN)
Barbara Emhart, etc. v. SpantaX, s.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ. 3015 (EHN)
Richard Leubkert, etc. v. SpantaX, S.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 3021 (EHN)
Horace Baker, et al. v. Spantax Airlines, S.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 2 Civ 2987 (EHN)
Georaina Aracena v. Spantax, S.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 3018 (EHN)
Carmen Aracena Vv. Spantax, S.A., et al.,
C.A. No. B82 Civ 3016 (EHN)
® Southern District of New York	A—4
Jacob Boyarsky v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ. 6199 (RLC)
Arlene Crane v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 6200 (RLC)
Frances Picone, et al. v. SpantaX, s.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 6283 (RLC)
Esther Lebowitz, et al. v. Spantax Airlines, Inc.., et &l.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 6314 (RLC)
Vickie Miller,	-et al. v. SpantaX Airlines,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 6406 (RLC)
Ana Vrinceanu v. Spantax, S.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 6507 (RLC)
Miquel A. Carrio, et al. v. Spantax, S.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 82 Civ 6676 (RLC)