IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Huntington, West Virginia on November 14, 1970

Case MDL No. 94 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 6
. 7 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL
ON EE ]
[) MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TEIN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT cd
HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA ON ) DOCKET NO. 94: .
NOVEMBER 14, 1970 ) IEE
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM*,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER*, JOSEPH S.
LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
In the fall of 1970 a Southern Airways jet, chartered by
Marshall University's football team, crashed near Hunting-
ton, West Virginia, fatally injuring all seventy passengers
and five crew members. There are now ten actions 1/ pend-
ing in six different districts asserting claims arising from
C the crash. Four of the actions are pending in the Southern
District of New York, two in the District of New Jersey, and
one each in the Eastern District of New York, District of
- Columbia, Eastern District of Kentucky and Southern District
of West Virginia.
* Judges Wisdom and Becker were unable to attend the
hearing on this matter but have, with the consent of the
parties, participated in this decision.
1/ At the time the Show Cause Order was entered an addi-
tional action was pending in the Northern District of Georgia.
It has since been settled and dismissed. At the hearing on
; this matter, the Panel was advised by counsel for plaintiff
Pruitt and defendant Southern that an action brought by Pruitt
in the state courts of New York had been removed to the Southern
District of New York. Since the hearing this action has been
transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia under
28 U.S.C. §1404(a), and is included on the attached Schedule A.

Case MDL No. 94 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 6
. ae
® On December 16, 1971, the Panel ordered the partiés to
these actions to show cause why they should not be transferred
to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Responses have been
received from defendants Southern Airways, Kollsman Instrument,
Corp., and the United States of America. At the hearing on
this matter counsel for one plaintiff, Pruitt, also appeared.
of the responding parties, only the United States favors
transfer of the litigation under Section 1407. We have, never-
theless, concluded that the questions of fact common to all
actions concerning the cause of the crash make them appropriate
for pretrial assignment to a single judge. Here, as in other
C air disaster litigation, transfer under Section 1407 will
avoid potential duplication of pretrial effort, serving the
convenience of parties and witnesses and advancing the just
and efficient conduct of the actions. See e.g., In re Denver,
Colorado Air Disaster, —_ F. Supp. __ (J.P.M.L. February 29,
1972); In re Las Vegas, Nevada Air Disaster, 336 F. Supp. 414
(J.P.M.L., 1972). °
Southern Airways contends that transfer of these actions
is unnecessary. It has urged, since the filing f its initial
response several months ago, that the passenger claims asserted
in four of the cases in the Southern District of New York and
in two cases in the District of New Jersey are settled and will
soon be dismissed. And it maintains that the third party actions
®

Case MDL No. 94 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 6
5 . . -3-
for indemnification filed by it against the United States in
® the two New Jersey actions should not be included in any trans-
fer because they involve questions of law different from those
raised by the passenger claims against Southern. For this
reason Southern urges that only five actions are involved and
notes that three of those five are brought by the same plain-2
tiff, reducing the actual number of lawsuits involved to two.
And although it would like to see both of these two passen-
ger claims transferred to the Southern District of West
Virginia, where the crash occurred, Southern requests the
Panel to defer action so that it can seek transfer for all
¥
purposes under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).”
Counsel for plaintiff Pruitt adopts the arguments of
® Southern concerning the number of actions actually involved.
He also argues that the liability issue is relatively uncom-
plicated and that the litigation is not sufficiently complex
to warrant the Panel's attention. Defendant Kollsman Instru-
ment Corp. also opposed transfer in a response filed with the
Panel, asserting that it is a defendant in the Eastern District
of New York action only and that this litigation is not the
type contemplated for transfer by the statute.
zy The three actions brought by the same plaintiff are:
Elizabeth Pruitt v. Southern Airways, Inc. E.D. Ky., Civil
Action No. 1039; Elizabeth Pruitt v. Southern Airways,
D. D.C., Civil Action No. 2274-71; Elizabeth Pruitt v. Southern
Airways, Inc. S.D. W.Va., Civil Action No. 2963
Southern contends that Pruitt will ultimately proceed
with only one of the three suits and that the only other
passenger claim not settled is that of plaintiff Nathan in
the Eastern District of New York.
@ 3/ Since the hearing Southern has secured transfer of one of
the Pruitt actions to West Virginia. See n. 1, supra.

Case MDL No. 94 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 6
re ’ —4-
® We reject the logic of Southern Airways and Pruitt in
concluding that only two actions are pending here. In spite
of the assurances of Southern that six of the passenger claims
have been settled, none of them have been dismissed. And,
although three of the remaining actions are brought by the
same plaintiff, there is still a risk of duplication of effort
in those actions.
We also reject the argument that Southern Airways' third-
party claims against the United States should not be transferred
for pretrial proceedings with the passenger claims. There are
admittedly different questions of law involved in these two
categories of claims, but Section 1407 requires the existence
@® of common questions of fact, not common questions of law.
Both types of claims involve the common factual background con-
cerning the events surrounding the crash and will benefit from
assignment to a single judge.
The United States has proposed the Southern District of
West Virginia as the appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation and, while Southern Airways disputes the number of
cases to be transferred and prefers transfer for all purposes,
it argues that West Virginia is the most logical situs for
the litigation. Opposition to this choice comes from plaintiff
Pruitt, who asserts that the Southern District of West Virginia
is an inconvenient forum for the parties and witnesses to
this litigation and suggests that the cases be sent to a
@

Case MDL No. 94 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	5 of 6
: Lo. -5-
metropolitan area, such as the Southern District of New York
® or the District of Columbia.
Our past decisions have generally assigned air crash
litigation to the district in which the crash occurred, unless
the facts of a particular litigation made another district
more appropriate. In re Denver, Colorado Air Disaster, supra;
In re Las Vegas, Nevada Air Disaster, supra. NO reason has
been shown for deviating from the general rule in this case.
Nor can we see any reason for deferring our decision until
Southern has attempted to secure transfer of the cases to the
Southern District of West Virginia under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).
As we have already stated, all of these actions should be trans-
ferred, not just the two referred to by Southern. And our order
® of transfer under Section 1407 will not preclude Southern from
later applying to the appropriate court for transfer of any
action for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. WT 4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on the
attached Schedule A be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the Southern District of West Virginia and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable K. K. Hall for
coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
3/ See e.g., In re Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 333 F.
Supp. 299 (S.D. N.Y.) pet. for writ of mandamus denied sub
nom. Pfizer, Inc. Vv. Lord, 447 F. 2d 122 (2d Cir. 1971);
Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Co. 326 F. Supp. 121 (N.D. Cal.
1971);	In re Koratron Patent Litigation, 302 F. Supp. 239
(J.P.M.L. 1969); In re Fairland, Indiana Air Disaster, 309
® F. Supp. 621 (J.P.M.L. 1969).

Case MDL No. 94 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 6
® SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 94
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Maja Harris, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways No. 1655-70
Maja Harris, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways No. 1670-70
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Phyllis Anne Loria, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. 70 Civ 5278
Yolanda Gloria Shoebridge, etc. v. Civil Action
Southern Airways, Inc., et al. No. 71 Civ 257
Marie C. Gilmore, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. 71 Civ 245
Israel Lajterman, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. 71 Civ 246
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
@ George J. Nathan, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways, et al. No. 71 C 1158
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Elizabeth Pruitt, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways, Inc. No. 1039
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Elizabeth Pruitt, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways, Inc. No. 2274-71
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Elizabeth Pruitt, etc. v. Southern Civil Action
Airways, Inc. No. 2963