IN RE: Multidistrict Civil Actions Involving the Air Crash Disaster Near Hanover, New Hampshire, on October 25, 1968

Case MDL No. 43 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 6
JUDICIAL PANZL ON li SE
_ MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION pele: 0
FILED ETE So
1040 ER -
THE JUDICIAL PANEL JUN 2 isn) oo Col
ON i SL ny ERIE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PATRICIA D. HOWARD* TE EE
CLERK OF THE PANEL B Co
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ACTIONS )
INVOLVING THE AIR CRASH DISASTER ) DOCKET NO. 43
NEAR HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, ON )
OCTOBER 25, 1968 ) :
| OPINION AND ORDER Cee
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Pome ee
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH :
S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL .
PER CURIAM Cane Ee
While making its approach for landing at the Lebanon, EE
New Hampshire Airport, Northeast Airlines flight 946 crashed ERE
on Moose Mountain near Hanover, New Hampshire. Thirty-one Co Co
passengers and two crew members sustained fatal injuries in Co
the crash while eight passengers and a crew member survived. N -
The actions listed on Schedule A have been filed on behalf of Co
surviving passengers and on behalf of the estates of the de-
ceased passengers. Claims have been asserted against Northeast Sa
Airlines, Fairchild Hiller Corporation (the manufacturer of the IE N
aircraft), Collins Radio Co., Inc., Wilcox Electric Company, Inc. CS Co
* Although he was unable to be present at the hearing held - oo }
in Washington, D.C., on May 22, 1970, Judge Weigel has with the
consent of all parties participated in the decision in this matter. .

Case MDL No. 43 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 6
® a -
and Kollsman Instrument Corporation (suppliers of electronic
equipment), and the United States of America.
On April 16, 1970, we ordered the parties to show cause
why these actions should not be transferred for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 and
a hearing was set for May 22, 1970 to consider such a transfer.
The responses to this order and the arguments presented
at the hearing reveal that all parties concede that there are
substantial common questions of fact relating to liability.
Thus there can be little doubt that transfer to a single
district either for pretrial proceedings under section 1407
or for all purposes under section 1404 (a) would promote
® the just and efficient conduct of this litigation and serve
the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses. In re
Fairland, Indiana Air Disaster Litigation, 309 F. Supp. 621
(JPML 1970).
The principal dispute involves the selection of the most
appropriate transferee district for conducting coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under section 1407.
Although actions are pending in five districts, only two are
considered to be appropriate: the Districts of Vermont and
I/ One of the actions listed on Schedule A, the Schneider
Case, has been transferred from the Southern District of
New York to the District of New Hampshire under section
1404(a). Transfer of the other actions under section 1407
will not prevent the appropriate court from considering
¢o their transfer under section 1404(a) at the completionof coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In
re Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation, F. Supp.
(JPML 1970) and cases cited therein.

Case MDL No. 43 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 6
® -3-
New Hampshire. 2/ Vermont is favored only by plaintiffs in
actions filed in that district and their principal reason
for opposing transfer to New Hampshire is their desire to
have Vermont rather than New Hampshire law applied to their
claims.
This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons: the
transferee court must apply the law of the transfer forum,
Healey v. American Airlines, ____ F. Supp. ____ (E.D. Kentucky,
April 1, 1970) citing Van Dusen v. mirack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964),
and these actions are being transferred for pretrial pro-
ceedings and must, unless terminated, be remanded at or prior
to completion of all pretrial proceedings. The remainder of
® these plaintiff's argument is directed to the contention that
transfer of all actions to the District of Vermont would not
greatly inconvenience the defendants or the other plaintiffs.
While this may be true, we note that all defendants favor
transfer to the District of New Hampshire .3/
Although there are more actions pending in the District
of Vermont than in the District of New Hampshire, three
27] In refusing to permit the action to be maintained as a
class action under Rule 23, FRCP, Judge Fullam determined
that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is not a suitable
district in which to consolidate this litigation. Hobbs wv.
Northeast Airlines, _____ F. Supp. ____ (E.D. Pennsylvania,
May 15, 1970).
3/ One defendant, Collins Radio Company, supports transfer
to either district.
@

Case MDL No. 43 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 6
® “1
other factors lead us to conclude that these actions should
be transferred to the District of New Hampshire under section
1407: (1) the crash occurred in the District of New Hampshire
and the majority of the witnesses and the electronic instrumenta-
tion which may have contributed or caused the crash are located
in that district, (2) New Hampshire is said to be the only
district in which all defendants can be sued by any plaintiff
and (3) New Hampshire has already been chosen by one court
as the appropriate district for transfer under section 1404 (a). Y
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the
attached Schedule A now pending in other districts are hereby
transferred to the District of New Hampshire and assigned to
o the Honorable Hugh H. Bownes for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407.2/
4/ SeeFootnote 1, supra.
5/ The written consent of that Court has been filed with
C the Clerk of the Panel,

Case MDL No. 43 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 6
® DOCKET NO. 43 SCHEDULE A
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
David D. Hobbs, et al. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 69-1335
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Patricia-Anne Hillman Gil, etc. v. Civil Action
Fairchild Hiller Corp., et al. No. 3053
Charles Bruce Schneider, etc. v. Civil Action
Northeast Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 3119
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
J. William Hudson, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5818
Gino Benedini, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5819
William Gravel, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
® Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5839William Gravel, etc. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. 5840
Frederick Kipp, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5866
Joan M. Watson, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5869
Stanley L. Chamberlin, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5875
Elizabeth A. McLaughlan, etc. v. Civil Action
Northeast Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5876
Stanley L. Chamberlin, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5877
George Collins, etc. v. Nottheast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 5906
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Claire H. Havelka, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
C Airlines, Inc. No. 69 Civ 3663

Case MDL No. 43 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 6
® DOCKET NO. 43 -2 - SCHEDULE A
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dorothy Cornelius Smith, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 69 C 263
Katie Dawkins, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 69 C 1538
Mathew Birnbaum, etc. v. Northeast Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 69 C 1398