IN RE: Air Crash Disaster Near Pellston, Michigan, on May 9, 1970

Case MDL No. 125 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
2 I 7
SL :
i coy
RPR 1g 1079BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL PY. =i
ON pl
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TUE	LE pnd	TRL
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER NEAR )
PELLSTON, MICHIGAN, ON MAY 9, } DOCKET NO. 125
1970 )
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
On May 9, 1970, a Lear jet aircraft operated by
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc., crashed on approach to landing
® at Pellston, Michigan, fatally injuring both crew members and
all four passengers. Three actions arising out of the crash
have been filed in the Eastern District of Michigan and two
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Executive Jet moves
the Panel for transfer of the two Pennsylvania actions to
the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. We find that such proceedings will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, but we have
concluded that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the most
appropriate transferee forum.
® * Although Judges Wisdom and Lord were unable to attend the	= Panel hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties,
participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 125 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 5
-
® The Pennsylvania actions and two of the Michigan actions
are wrongful death actions for damages resulting from deaths of
the passengers. A The other Michigan action is fer damages
to the aircraft and is brought by an insurance company, as subrogee
of Executive Jet. Each plaintiff alleges that the crash was
caused by either pilot error, a defective altimeter, a defect
in the design or construction of the aircraft, negligence of the
Government, or some combination thereof. All parties agree that
questions of fact pertinent to the issues of liability are common
to each action. Nevertheless, plaintiffs seeking recovery of
damages resulting from deaths of the passengers oppose transfer.
Plaintiffs in the Stonorov actions in Pennsylvania
argue that they have already accomplished a great deal of discovery
® through document production, depositions, interrogatories and
requests for admission. They contend that they are so close
to trial that they could not possibly benefit from coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the Bluestone
action in Michigan argue that duplication of discovery will occur
regardless of consolidation or coordination because they did not
participate in the discovery already taken in the Stonorov actions.
And they assert that since they have settled with defendant
Executive Jet the emphasis in their action will be different
from the other cases.
We find, however, that the facts bearing on the issues
L/
o The following parties are involved as either defendants or	4 third-party defendants in each of these actions: Executive
Jet Aviation, Inc.; United States; Gates-Lear Jet, Inc.;
Instrument & Flight Research, Inc.; and Col-Aire, Inc.

Case MDL No. 125 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
-3 -
@ of liability are common to each action?’ and that transfer of
this litigation to a single district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings will eliminate the possibility of duplication
of discovery and avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the parties
and witnesses. Although plaintiffs in Stonorov may be ready
for trial, defendants insist that they have a lot of discovery
to complete before trial and that discovery will be relevant to
the Michigan actions. In addition, by consolidating these actions
before a single judge the discovery already completed in Stonorov
gan be made available to the Michigan plaintiffs, even though
thev did not participate in that discovery. See Manual for Complex
Litigation , Part I, §3.11 (rev. ed. 1973).
® Because of the advanced stage of preparation of theStonorov actions pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
that district is the most appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation. A significant amount of discovery has already been
completed in the Stonorov actions and the court's familiarity
with the issues raised will enable it to expeditiously process
any remaining discovery. In re Air Crash Disaster Near
Atlantic City, New Jersey, on July 26, 1969, F. Supp.
(J.P.M.L., filed January 8, 1973). In addition, no party has
expressed any desire to depose any of the "eyewitnesses" or
government witnesses who have not already been deposed. And
the only other witnesses important to the claims alleged
® 2/ Even though plaintiffs in Bluestone have settled with	Lo Executive Jet, the other defendants in that action have
filed a third-party action against Executive Jet which
will involve questions of fact common to the other actions.

Case MDL No. 125 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 5
- 4
® in this litigation are located at the principal places of
business of the defendant corporations involved, none of which
are within the Eastern District of Michigan.
Furthermore, the transfer of the related Michigan cases
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will permit the transferee
court to proceed to early trial with the Stonorov actions, if
they are ready for trial first. The result of an early trial
of those actions may advance the date of termination of the
remaining actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions on the
attached Schedule A pending in the Eastern District of Michigan
be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Eastern District
® of Pemnsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions pending in that district.
J

Case MDL No. 125 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
® SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 125
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Martha J. Wolfman, etc. v. Executive Civil Action
Jet Aviation, Inc., et al. No. 38277
Irving J. Bluestone, etc. v. Gates-Lear
Jet, Inc., et al. Civil Action
No. 38253
Federal Insurance Co., etc. v.
Col-Air, Inc., a/k/a Col-Aire, Inc., Civil Action
et al. No. 38264
- EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Elizabeth Foster Stonorov, etc. v. Civil Action
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc., et al. No. 71-1091
Elizabeth Foster Stonorov, etc. v. Civil Action
United States of America No. 72-784