IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Duarte, California, on June 6, 1971

Case MDL No. 106 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 9
ty sh, pn
a 4 Lr, 4
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL PRT
ON JY REE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION log 7 TH
GL ByRN yn
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT ) ETSY
DUARTE, CALIFORNIA ON ) Ra
JUNE 6, 1971 ) DOCKET NO. 106
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, JOHN MINOR WISDOM*, EDWARD
WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD,
ITII*, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
On June 6, 1971, a United States Marine Corps Phantom Jet
fighter and a Hughes Air West DC-9 commercial airliner collided
in mid-air near Duarte, California. The pilot of the Phantom
Jet and the 44 passengers and five crew members aboard the DC-9
$ received fatal injuries. The radar intercept officer aboardthe Phantom Jet is the sole survivor of the collision.
More than thirty actions arising out of this crash have
been filed in the Central District of California and have been
assigned to Judge Peirson M. Hall. Nine other civil actions
.are pending in the District of Utah and two in the Western
District of Washington. On its own initiative the Panel
ordered the parties to these actions to show cause why they
should not be transferred to a single district for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On the basis of the
responses to the Panel's order and the arguments presented at
the hearing, we hold that to further the convenience of the
3 * Although Judges Wisdom and Lord were not present at the~ hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties, partici-
pated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 106 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 9
-2-
Ss parties and witnesses and to promote the just and efficientconduct of the litigation the actions must be transferred to
the Central District of California for pretrial proceedings.
All parties responding to the Panel's order to show cause
concede that the Central District of California is the most
appropriate district for transfer under Section 1407. We agree.
The mid-air collision out of which these actions arise occurred
in that district and both planes involved in the collision
originally departed from locations within that district. In
addition, the lone survivor of the crash and the majority of
witnesses reside there. Furthermore, the majority of the liti-
gation has been filed there, a document depository has been
established and all parties have been participating in the
$ discovery program being supervised by Judge Hall in that district.The responding plaintiffs in the Utah and Washington
actions argue, however, that any transfer should be limited to
discovery relating to the issue of liability. They contend that
discovery relating to the issue of damages is local in nature
and does not concern questions of fact common to the other
cases.
Section 1407 (a) authorizes the Panel to "separate any
claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim" from
the remainder of the transferred action and to remand such
claims to the transferor district. See, e.g., In re Hotel
Telephone Charge Antitrust Litigation,	_ F. Supp. ____
8 (J.P.M.L. 1972); In re Penn Central Securities Litigation, 325F. Supp. 309 (J.P.M.L. 1971). It does not authorize the Panel

Case MDL No. 106 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 9
-3-
S$ to transfer one issue raised by a claim, such as liability,while remanding another issue raised by the same claim, such
as damages. For this reason we deny respondents request.
Cf. In re Antibiotic Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp.
1403 (J.P.M.L., April 3, 1969); In re Air Crash Disaster at
Greater Cincinnati Airport, 298 F. Supp. 353 (J.P.M.L., Oct. 21,
1968). We also think it more conducive to effective judicial
management to allow the transferee judge to determine whether
and to what extent discovery on separate issues is appropriate
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See,
In re San Juan, Puerto Rico Air Crash Disaster 316 F. Supp. 981
(J.P.M.L., Aug. 6, 1970).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on the
$ attached Schedule A pending in the District of Utah and the
Western District of Washington be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Central District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Peirson
M. Hall for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions pending in that
district.

Case MDL No. 106 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 9
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 106
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Coy M. Morris, et al. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. C-73-72
Marian C. Dunn, et al. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. C-74-72
Alice W. Mangum, et al. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. C-75-72
Jeanne Pyke, et al. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. C-76-72
Jeanne M. Pyke, et al. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. C=-77-72
Afton G. Allen, et al. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. C-78-72
Virginia H. Pyke, et al. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. C-80-72
Janet T. Schoenhals, et al. v. Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. C-81-72
3 John Jay Garcia, et al. v. United Civil ActionStates of America No. C-92-72
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Margaret M. Reeves, etc. v. Hughes Civil Action 71
Air Corp., etc. No. 71-1425-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
Glenda Gabel, etc. No. 71-1431-PH
Howard Brand, et al. v. Hughes Air Civil Action
West, Inc. No. 71-1465-PH
Norene E. Forgy, et al. v. Hughes Civil Action
Air West, Inc. No. 71-1555-PH
Glenda Gabel, etc. v. Hughes Air Civil Action
Corp., etc. No. 71-1595-PH
James D. Dean, M.D. v. Hughes Air Civil Action
Corp., etc. No. 71-1822-PH
Albert Denegal, Jr., etc. v. Hughes Civil Action
Air West, Inc. No. 71-1996-PHK

Case MDL No. 106 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 9
SCHEDULE A -2- DOCKET NO. 106
$ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIARalph D. Miller, et al. v. Hughes Civil Action
Air Corp., etc. No. 71-2021-PH
Chase Apgar, et al. v. Hughes Civil Action
Corp., etc. No. 71-2253-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
Afton G. Allen, etc. No. 71-2334-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
Janet T. Schoenhals, et al. No. 71-2335-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
John Jay Garcia, etc. No. 71-2336-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
Virginia H. Pyke, etc. No. 71-2337-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
Jeanne M. Pyke, etc. No. 71-2338-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
Jeanne F. Pyke, etc. No. 71-2339-PH
$ Helen F. Fennell, etc. v. Hughes Civil ActionAir Corp., etc. No. 71-2528-PH
Glen Leroy Hunter, et al. v. Hughes Civil Action
Air Corp., etc. No. 71-2791-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Civil Action
Alice Wilkinson Mangum, etc. No. 71-2796-PH
Otto Conrad Davidson, etc. v. Civil Action
Hughes Air Corp., etc. No. 71-2831-PH
Cynthia Kalbfleisch, etc. v. Civil Action
Hughes Air Corp., et al. No. 71-2878-PH
Michael Rene Garcia, etc. v. Civil Action
Hughes Air Corp., etc. No. 71-2932-PH
Glenda Gabel, etc. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. 72-1-PH
John D. McCorden, et al. v. Hughes Civil Action
Air Corp., et al. No. 72-25-PH
8 Daniel Subic, et al. v. Hughes Civil Action	Air West, Inc. No. 72-54-PH

Case MDL No. 106 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 9
SCHEDULE -3- DOCKET NO. 106
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Elizabeth W. Kaufman, etc. v. Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. 72-344-PH
Lee C. Potter, et al. v. Hughes Civil Action
Air Corp., etc. No. 72-450-PH
Judith V. Wilkerson, etc. v. Civil Action
Hughes Air Corp., et al. No. 72-469-PH
Norene E. Forgy, et al. v. The Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. 72-633-PH
Michael Rene Garcia, etc. v. Civil Action
United States of America No. 72-635-PH
Helen E., Fennell, etc. v. The Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. 72-875-PH
Howard Brand, et al. v. The Civil Action
United States of America No. 72-924-PH
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Carol Nicolay, etc. v. United Civil Action
$ States 262-72	Etta Mae Bruner, etc. v. United Civil Action
States of America No. 329-72C2

Case MDL No. 106 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 9
i MELT UL DTIATTE g SU
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL I : I
| oN F-11973 Cs -
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ER .
BR rn FE Ea Cen
IN RE DUARTE, CALIFORNIA	AIR ) |
CRASH DISASTER ON JUNE 6, 1971 ) DOCKET NO. 106	. . FE 3
James S. Phillips, etc. v. Hughes no,
Air Corp., D.C., Civil Action No. \0 (i1108-72 A CL
OPINION AND ORDER A
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH *, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, SEES
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM - Co
On June 6, 1971, a Marine Corps aircraft collided Lo
in mid-air with a Hughes Air West passenger plane and in July } so
1972 the Panel transferred more than 30 actions arising from A Vo
that collision to the Central District of California for coordi- : HE
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re Duarte, Cali- Co
fornia, Air Disaster Litigation, 346 F. Supp. 529 (J.P.M.L. 1972). - 2
The Phillips action, brought by the parents of the Marine Corps : Cn
pilot killed in the collision, was subsequently filed in the EEE
District of Columbia and was the subject of a conditional transfer Co B
order to the Central District of California, entered by the Clerk B Co
of the Panel pursuant to the Panel's Rule 12. 53 F.R.D. 119, ; .
123 (J.P.M.L. 1971). The sole defendant, Hughes Air, has .
expressed its opposition to the proposed transfer. On the basis
of the briefs and oral argument, we order the Phillips action . oo
transferred to the Central District of California. Co IER
* Although Judge Murrah was not present at the hearing,
he has, with the consent of all parties, participated in
this decision.

Case MDL No. 106 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	8 of 9
$ iHughes has moved to dismiss or to quash process in
the Phillips action on the grounds that it was not doing business
in the District of Columbia and that service upon it was,
therefore, improper. The plaintiffs have moved for a continuance
of that motion pending answers to certain interrogatories and
Hughes has moved to strike those interrogatories. None of
these motions has been argued before the District of Columbia court.
Hughes contends that the action should be left with
the transferor court for decision of the motion to dismiss
because the transferor court has a greater familiarity with
the relevant laws. This argument is unconvincing. As Hughes
conceded at oral argument, its motion to dismiss is clearly
$ a pretrial motion which may appropriately be decided by thetransferee court and the problem of ascertaining and applying
the law of the transferor jurisdiction is frequently faced
by transferee judges. See, e.g., In re Puerto Rico Air Disaster
Litigation, 340 F. Supp. 492(D.P.R. 1972).
Hughes also argues that the Phillips action is factually
different from the cases previously transferred because it arises
from the death of the Marine Corps pilot rather than from the
deaths of the passengers and crew on the Hughes airplane and raises
the legal issues of assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
While different legal issues may be raised by the Phillips
complaint, we think the factual issues in the case are suffi-
8 ciently common to warrant transfer for pretrial coordinationor consolidation.

Case MDL No. 106 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 9
: .IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action entitled
James S. Phillips, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., District of Columbia,
Civil Action No. 1108-72, be, and the same hereby is, TRANSFERRED
to the Central District of California and, with the permission
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Peirson Hall for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407, with the other actions pending in that district
and assigned to Judge Hall.