IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Tweed-New Haven Airport on June 7, 1971

Case MDL No. 96 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 7
ES uk x	BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL pon EER ay
ON o Co ™N
: MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION \® LL |
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT ) : : Tn
TWEED-NEW HAVEN AIRPORT ON ) Ce
JUNE 7, 1971 ) DOCKET NO. 96
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
The ten actions composing this litigation arise from the
crash of an Allegheny Airlines aircraftnear the Tweed Airport
of New Haven, Connecticut, fatally injuring twenty-eight of
the thirty-one persons on board. The Panel ordered the parties
® to these actions to show cause why they should not be transferredto a single district for coordinated or consclidated pretrial
proceedings. 28 U.S.C. §1407(c) (i). On the basis of the
responses to the Panel's order and the arguments presented at
the hearing on this matter, we hold that the actions must be
transferred to the District of Connecticut for pretrial pro-
ceedings to further the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
* Although Judges Wisdom and Becker were unable to attend
the hearing, they have, with the consent of the parties,
participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 96 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 7
. ,.
Only Allegheny Airlines unqualifiedly supports transfer
® of all cases to Connecticut. A group of plaintiffs who have
filed actions mainly in the District of Connecticut offer token
opposition to transfer. They state that only two groups of
attorneys, thus far, represent the claims of deceased passengers
in this litigation and that these two groups can easily cooperate
in coordinating the pretrial processing of these cases. But
if transfer is ordered, they urge that the cases be sent to the
District of Connecticut. The strongest opposition to transfer
comes from plaintiff Higginson in the District of Maryland, who
adopts the argument that coordination by counsel is possible
here and objects to consolidation under Section 1407 as inevitably
delaying trial, impeding settlement and increasing the costs of
® air disaster litigation. If transfer is ordered, Higginson
prefers the District of Columbia or an adjacent district as
transferee forum.
In our estimation this litigation presents a classic case
for transfer under Section 1407. Ten plaintiffs in three dis-
tricts are asserting the liability of a common defendant arising
out of the same crash. The pretrial processing of these cases
will necessarily require development of the same facts and,
while plaintiffs urge their ability to cooperate informally,
the only way to assure the orderly handling of these cases is
to assign them to a single judge. The spirit of cooperation
referred to by the plaintiffs should then enable them to complete
preparation of their cases for trial in minimal time and with
® minimal cost.

Case MDL No. 96 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 7
. .
Only Allegheny Airlines unqualifiedly supports transfer
® of all cases to Connecticut. A group of plaintiffs who have
filed actions mainly in the District of Connecticut offer token
opposition to transfer. They state that only two groups of
attorneys, thus far, represent the claims of deceased passengers
in this litigation and that these two groups can easily cooperate
in coordinating the pretrial processing of these cases. But
if transfer is ordered, they urge that the cases be sent to the
District of Connecticut. The strongest opposition to transfer
comes from plaintiff Higginson in the District of Maryland, who
adopts the argument that coordination by counsel is possible
here and objects to consolidation under Section 1407 as inevitably
delaying trial, impeding settlement and increasing the costs of
® air disaster litigation. If transfer is ordered, Higginson
prefers the District of Columbia or an adjacent district as
transferee forum.
In our estimation this litigation presents a classic case
for transfer under Section 1407. Ten plaintiffs in three dis-
tricts are asserting the liability of a common defendant arising
out of the same crash. The pretrial processing of these cases
will necessarily require development of the same facts and,
while plaintiffs urge their ability to cooperate informally,
the only way to assure the orderly handling of these cases is
to assign them to a single judge. The spirit of cooperation
referred to by the plaintiffs should then enable them to complete
preparation of their cases for trial in minimal time and with
[J minimal cost.

Case MDL No. 96 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 7
3
® Plaintiff Higginson argues that if these cases are trans-ferred, they should be sent to the District of Columbia where
the flight originated and where the crew was based. The
remaining parties who have responded to the Show Cause Order
favor the District of Connecticut. The Panel generally assigns
air disaster litigation to the district in which the crash
occurred because of the presence of important witnesses and
documents there. See, In re Fairland, Indiana Air Disaster,
309 F. Supp. 621 (J.P.M.L. 1970); cf. In re New Orleans
Air Disaster, 331 F. Supp. 554 (J.P.M.L. 1971). And
it seems clear that the rule should be followed here since
Connecticut is the focal point of the litigation. Seven of
the ten actions are now pending in that district and fifteen
C of the twenty-eight passengers on board were Connecticut resi-
dents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions on the attached
Schedule A be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
District of Connecticut and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable M. Joseph Blumenfeld for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407
with the actions in that district listed on the attached
Schedule A.
®

Case MDL No. 96 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 7
: SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 96
® DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Rosemarie A. Perry, etc. v. Allegheny Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 14724
Marion E. Kerber, etc. v. Allegheny Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 14725
Norman H. Kelly v. Allegheny Airlines, Civil Action
Inc. No. 14740
Jacob Meisel, etc. v. Allegheny Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 14786
St. Francis Home for Children, Inc. v. Civil Action
Allegheny Airlines, Inc. No. 14817
Ruth LaFerriere, etc. v. Allegheny Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 14826
Janet C. McCaa v. Allegheny Airlines, Civil Action
Inc. No. 14832
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
® Ann L. Bishop, etc. v. Allegheny Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 71-1002-H
Judith ¥Y. Higginson, etc. v. Allegheny Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 71-1134-H
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Elizabeth H. Lamb, etc. v. Allegheny Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 72-65

Case MDL No. 96 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 7
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL iLaa Te 2 . no So
oo NN SN. LITIGATION fh wu .
“Tg py | TeIN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT TWEED-NEW ) cee “iv i : H
HAVEN AIRPORT ON JUNE 7, 1971 ) ESTE : SST SE PAR
Morton Hollander, etc., v. Allegheny DOCKET NO.	96 9	Airlines, et al., D. Maryland, ) :
Civil Action Wo. 73-575-M ) Hh
OPINION AND ORDER HUE B : |
‘BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, B N : . : h
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, BE CeeJOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL Co
PER CURIAM cs SE
The above-captioned action arises out of the crash of Co -
an Allegheny Airlines aircraft near Tweed Airport at New Haven, i, 0
Connecticut. Similar actions were previously transferred by CL. oo
the Panel to the District of Connecticut for coordinated or consol- :
idated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407. Tweed-New Haven 2
Airport Air Disaster Litigation, 343 F.Supp. 951 (J.P.M.L. 1972). = x
The Clerk of the Panel issued an order conditionally transferring
the above action to the District of Connecticut and the Maryland a |
plaintiffs have moved the Panel to vacate that order. We find . . Co
that, even though the motion to vacate is unopposed, the above Co oo
action must be transferred to the District of Connecticut in order a
to promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. }
Plaintiffs contend that there are no questions of fact -
common to the previously transferred actions because Allegheny oo -
has tacitly admitted underlying liability. In addition, plaintiffs hs -
argue that transfer will not serve the convenience of the parties |

Case MDL No. 96 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 7
¢ -
and witnesses because discovery concerning damages will be taken
in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Plaintiffs,
however, are unable to point to a specific stipulation of liability
by Allegheny in their action. Without such a stipulation, our
decision necessarily must be based on the facts as pleaded. And
it is clear that the allegations in the complaint raise issues
which are common to the actions in Connecticut. Indeed, this is
a classic case for transfer under Section 1407. Furthermore,
our decision will in no way affect plaintiffs’ discovery with
respect to the issue of damages. We recognize that that discovery
will take place where the witnesses are located. Transfer of this
action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
® the other actions in this litigation will simply promote more
efficient disposition of all the litigation and eliminate the
possibilities of inconsistent pretrial decisions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion
to vacate the conditional transfer order be DENIED and IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the above action be, and the same hereby is,
| transferred to the District of Connecticut and assigned to the
Honorable M. Joseph Blumenfeld for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407.
C |