IN RE: Delta Airlines Crash at Boston, Massachusetts, on July 31, 1973

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case MDL.No. 160 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 1

1406 373 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

In re DELTA AIRLINUS CRASIL AT
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ON
SULY 31, 1973.

No. 160.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
April 10, 1974.

Proceeding ou motion by certain
plaintiffs and defendant airline for or-
- der transferring all litigation. arising
out of crash of commercial aircraft to
District of Massachusetts for coordinat-
ed or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Liti-

_ gation held that litigation would be

_transferred to such district rather than
te New Hampshire or Vermont Dis-
tricts. :

Transfer ordered.

Courts S°277.2
Litigation arising out of commercial

_ aircraft crash in which more than &0

persons perished would be transferred,
for purposes of coordinated or consoli-
dated trial proceedings, to District of
Massachusetts, in which crash occurred
and in which many of relevant docu-
ments and anticipated witnesses were lo-
cated, rather than to New Hampshire or
Vermont Districts in which majority of
‘victims had resided. 28 U.S.C.A. §
-°1407.

—

Before ALFRED FPF. MURRAIL,*
Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WIS-
DOM, EDWARD WEINIELD, EDWIN
A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKIR,
JOSEPH 8. LORD, Ill, and STANLEY
A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.

* Although Judge Murrah was not present at
the hearing, he has, with the consent of all
purties, participated iu this decision.

t. Plaintiffs in the action entitled Ann G.
D'Arcy, ete. v. Deltn Airlines, Jne., et al, 8.
D.N.Y., 78-Civ-5147, originally listed on

OPINION AND ORDIER

PER CURIAM.

On July 31, 1973, a Delta Airlines
commercial aircraft crashed while on ap-
proach for landing at Logan Interna-
tional Airport in Boston, Massachusctts
More than 80 persons aboard perished as
a result of the crash. Certain plaintiffs
and defendant Delta Airlines inove the

Panel for an order transferring all the’

litigation arising out of the crash of
that ill-fated flight to the District of
Massachusetts for coordinated or consel-
idated pretrial proceedings pursua.nt to
28 U.S.C. § 1407. The majority of
plaintiffs support transfer, but they dis-
agree on which district is the mosit ap-
propriate transferee forum.t. On the’
sis of the briefs filed and the heavri:.
held, we find that these actions contain
common questions of fact and transfer
of all the actions to the District of Mas-
sachusetts will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the liti-
gation.

All plaintiffs are asserting the liabili-
ty of a common defendant arising out of
the same crash and in our estirtation
this litigation presents a classic case for
transfer under Section 1407. The anly
real dispute is over the appropriate
transferee district. The majority of the
crash victims resided in New Hampshire
and Vermont and it has been arrucd
that transfer to one of those districts
would best serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses.

We have generally assigned air crash
litigation to the district in which the
crash has occurred. See, ec. g., In re
Florida Ieverglades Atr Disaster Litiga-
tion, 360 F.Supp. 1894, 1395 (J.P.MI..

1973); In re Huntington, West Virgin-_

ia, Air Disaster Litigation, 8342 F.Supp.

Schedule A, opposed transfer of their action
to the District of Massachusetts. Tnasmuch
as the Wonorable Marvin KF. Frankel has
granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand their
action to the New York state court, the
question of transfer of that action pursuant
to Section 1407 is now moet.

¢