IN RE: Air Disaster at San Antonio, Venezuela on April 11, 1969

Case MDL No. 72 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 6
| : JUDICIAL PAL 03 Ca ig oeAL TIRIS TD Tin ALT i cL RETA
THE JUDICIAL PANELS CTLIIEATICN LeON [RE I SHEE :
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGAREES3 |g7| RA
PATRICH, 3. How ARR SR FL ~
IN RE AIR DISASTER AT SAN ANTONIO, VENEZUELA pk DOCKET NO. 72 a oo
OPINION AND ORDER :
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM*, GiJ; SITEDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH TE SPE EE PO
S. LORD, III*, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL AE SE oa oo
PER CURIAM Co
On April 11, 1969, a DeHavilland U-1lA aircraft owned
and operated by the United States Army crashed near San oo | : :
Antonio, Venezuela. Of the six persons on board, three were Co . a
killed and two were seriously injured. Actions have been
brought by representatives of three persons receiving fatal
injuries and by the two persons who were seriously injured.’ Co
The defendants are Dehavilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., h
the manufacturer of the aircraft, United Aircraft Corp., the
manufacturer of the engines,	and Spartan Aviation, Inc., which,
under government contract, serviced the \aircraft immediately Le
prior to its crash.2/ - N EEE
* Judges John Minor Wisdom and Joseph S. Lord, III were unable
to attend the hearing in this matter but, with the comsent of
all parties, have participated in this decision.
1/ We were advised at oral argument that the one crew member
who received minor injuries had not commenced legal proceedings .
and was not expected to do so.
2/ Although we do not in any way pass on the merits of any
of these law suits, it seems obvious from the hearing and
pleadings filed with the Panel that Spartan is, at least for
the present time, the principal defendant im this litigation.

Case MDL No. 72 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 6
. * - 2 _
[J There are at present four actions in three different
districts. (See Appendix A). The action pending in the
Central District of California was brought by four of the
five plaintiffs and is against two of the three defendants,
United Aircraft and Spartan, both of which are apparently
amenable to service in California.>’ A single action on
behalf of one of the decedents' estates was filed and is now
pending in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Spartan is
the sole defendant in this action. Counsel for the plaintiff
advises that this action was filed in Oklahoma rather than
California due to the fact that the shorter California
statute of limitations had expired before the action could
be brought. There are two actions in the Eastern District
® of New York, one by the same four plaintiffs who brought the
California action and the other on behalf of the estate of
the decedent involved in the Oklahoma action. All three
defendants are named .in these actions although personal juris-
diction over Spartan has not been obtained. The reason for
bringing these two actions in New York rather than in California
or Oklahoma was simply because DeHavilland was not subject to
jurisdiction in either of those two states.
3/ An identical action was brought by the same four plaintiffs
against Spartan Aviation in the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Counsel for the plaintiff advises that this was a "protective
action" in the event that personal jurisdiction could not be
obtained in California. Having obtained jurisdiction over
Spartan in California, the plaintiffs then successfully moved
® to dismiss the Oklahoma action without prejudice.	hd

Case MDL No. 72 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 6
. ‘ | = 3 _
| J A motion was filed by Spartan to transfer the California
action to the Northern District of Oklahoma for coordinated
Or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407.
The two New York cases were included for consideration on the
initiative of the Panel. Although only Spartan favors transfer
of these actions under Section 1407, all parties concede that
the actions involve common questions of fact. And counsel for
the five plaintiffs quite candidly admitted at oral argument
that he would have brought all actions in the Central District
of California were it not for the problems relating to the
California statute of limitations and the limited personal
jurisdiction available	as to DeHavilland.
Except for the fact that there were fewer victims, |
@ we ‘do not see how this litigation is any different from other
common disaster litigation. There can be no doubt that all
of these actions involve common questions of fact relating
~ to the cause of the crash and, particularly as it concerns
Spartan, to the maintenance performed on the aircraft prior
to the crash. We, however, cannot agree with the movant that
the Northern District of Oklahoma is the most appropriate
transferee forum. In its moving papers, Spartan emphasized |
the fact that its maintenance facilities were located in the
Tulsa, Oklahoma vicinity and that its personnel and records
relative to the servicing of this aircraft were there. This
° :

Case MDL No. 72 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 6
® o=~ might have been a strong reason for transferring to the
Northern District of Oklahoma had it not been for the fact
that the maintenance operation was recently moved to a
Texas location. While there still may be some former Spartan
employees in the Tulsa vicinity, they may be deposed in the
Northern District of Oklahoma regardless of which court is
selected for transfer. |
Thus, the choice is seemingly limited to two opposite |
ends of the country, Brooklyn, New York or Los Angeles,
California. Neither would be inconvenient for the plaintiffs
as they brought actions in both districts or for United
Aircraft, which is a defendant in both districts. On the
® other hand, Los Angeles is undoubtedly inconvenient forDeHavilland while Brooklyn would be as inconvenient for
Spartan. Since the Central District of California is the
plaintiffs’ preference (in spite of the fact that plaintiffs’
counsel is from New York City) and since the initial discovery
will undoubtedly focus on the aircraft's maintenance performed
by Spartan, we think that the Central District of California
is the preferable transferee district.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the
attached Schedule A which are pending in other districts
be and the same are hereby transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of Caifornia for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under
®

Case MDL No. 72 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 6
28 U.S.C. §1407. With the consent of that Court, these
actions are hereby assigned to the Honorable Robert J.
Kelleher for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
Sursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. | oo
®
®

Case MDL No. 72 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 6
DOCKET NO. 72 i SCHEDULE A
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
John L. Morgan, etc. v. United Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 70=771-CC :
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF QOXLAHOMZ
Mary S. Moir, et al. v. Spartan Aviation, Civil Action :
Inc. No. 71-C-11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
John L. Morgan, etc. v. The DeHaviiland Sa Civil Action
Aircraft of Canada Litc., et al. No. 70 C 280 )
Roman F. Geller, Jr., etc. v. The Civil Action
DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., No. 71 C 383
et al. :