IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Chattanooga, Tennessee, on November 27, 1973

ee Ee ms Ln oo .
SE Case MDL No. 200 .Document 2 Filed 05/01/15. Page 1 of 3
) IS LE TENT ERY DEITY TATLATVGION
wd 14805 355 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
) oling is ithe more appropriate choice.
i Jive § ae 1, PRA | 21m iat ic . J en . - im i N	Since the ¢rasi 6CCUrred Wilfin L6av Wis~ gy pp A738 CHASII DIDLEIEG A JAA
wy PRU £43 hme erp VEO: ny SL2 my a ggre yw .	: trict, most of the eyewitnesses as weli as TANGGGES, TANWEASES, OW WG ;	0 at . Lo X Hoty Reena Ti .
I the air traffic controllers who were issu- : Valine 07, 187s.
a : 3 cert Tar ila aivapaft ava In
ET I ing instrucilons to the airerafi ave weat- “To SOG :
~ 3 -. £8 2 MOE rane - ¥Y op ey ps BIN oq o i N - M	: ed there. Moreover, the {ape recordings
{ E a . - . x3 JE Tel Deen arn Aol IA at wind T 3ation
| of the communications belween the alr J udiidd Cane: ON SHiaaiisuniCl ani gauud.	i re | FU, )Jpn ES Are H 8, oma EN ss dog
i : craft and the controiers and the docu- Apc 17, 1575. -H . a? ERIS Ym ad	
| ments relating to the flight pian, rouie J TS .
| & & 4 As Amended April 22, 10970	- - mo od EFA N Seren,	£9 aes 3 ~ ’ :	
| and approach path of the airerafl are in	: . ATpsind : .
the Charlotte Tower at Douglas Munici- :
j . + a as
| pal Airport. Thus, North Carolina will
i . * rr r 3 £ RI - td y, - 3 = hl hE -~ a. ey 4% - gx	
| be the {focal point for discovery on tne Defendant airline moved {hal ihe
fas LV abhilit . i tein 2 lal PUNTERS SU Si
: issue of liability. single action arising oul of alrpwae| : +3 ay 3 1 - “ [4 ERE. 34 3 3 kaag 4% ma - :	
: Ii is thercfore ordered thai the zc- crash pending in district oiler than the
. : . | H a jietal + FoaTimnrivor Solan : wr « ss	tions listed on the following Schedule A one in which crash occurred be trans
"net PRU. Iv fiiatielpta how 4 oy ~ y ens » vo. .
i and pending in districis other than the ferred to the district in which crash eeeI] i - - - RY a N	| = Wotan Dictvied of Worth PRCA EPs . . . . . . .
; : Western District or North Carolina be, curred and in which six ciner actions	| 3 ~ 1. a oq? J Rp	
and the same hereby are, transierred wo ete et en Rie Bp :
| Te er Vy oaEy hut arising oul of crash were pending Io
! the Western District of North Caroling ITa ser Ll. . bo iT ak . coordinated OF CONSSLGIWa QUelid: LUo- .
| and, with the consent of that court, as- .. ve Tudieial Pane! on Lialil .	. p oe . i wr ceedings. The Judicial Panel on sluuti- .
signed to the Honorable James B. Me TUT UU UU mene i»Comes . md ratad a ICTR district Litigation hold that the aslions	
Milian for coordinated or consolidated (UiStirnl swiss ss d HED Lert abese
£ trend min aadings apres sal fa OR T18 wolved were common questions of fact
3 pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S. IAVOIVIU WEIS COWMON GUESLIDLS Oi ZachES . .s £1 ix - ar : appl that tha teavnefon wouoa Dont serve
Pa {. § 1407. with the actions pending in &RG GAT Re LFRUSICY WousG DEL §3rVe }	: . ws . - 3 5 RR, FIN aye laa med arid
that district and listed on Schedule A. the convenience of tae paves ant wil
neon cand vmemreeta Fen Sat nme Q5I
h oe . nesses and promote tae just ant eri-
JRO . CUEDINE oo [I RN SNP TEJ EN 23 .
REE SCHEDULE A cient conduct of litigation.
’ - ’ - ~ . . . . . : + or .
Eastern District	of Virginia Crder entered transferring action
. Stephen C. Swain, etc. v. East- Civil Action for coordinated or consolidated prefrial
erin Air Lines, Inc fo. 74-663~N proceedings v . .	TOUCH GINES.
. “Western District of North Carclina : . : } .
dirs. Beily Stamey Shelley, etc. Civii Action . :
. v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. ho. (74-260 : : . ’ :
’ o : —- ear ase. a PERE 63 .	Mrs. Lydia Burk Norem v. East- Civil Actian Courts C=37%.8 . }
em Air Lines, Ine. Ne. C75-31 . Where six actions arising irom gir- Co
Tebri oli _— ve USPS FURIE JUNE. .Jup SSA Sh .
District of South Carolina © plane crash were pending in district 1m
! Bl Co i 13h seoide arentred and Ong Was :! Sam H. Brummer, etc. v. East- civil Action which accident occurred and ong Wa	H i i C ii : Sever 3 ry ae Sehsipd mesvarieay dt Le -	
| ern Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-1270 pending in another district, pursuant w
| . o L,. a . 1 ue - a =e = .. Ie
Cavotine Do pournnam Eastern Cidi Action the unopposed motion of defendant aii	| : ir Lines, Inc. : No. 74-157 . . . Leas . : :	| Pp Vim tha Tudieial Towal Slultidistrict	. Ce Ree a ne SH GLC 55 STEYR te
Robert Mi. Burpham v. Eastern Civil Action HR v ~e Sudicial Pansy on > LL pt
~ Air Lines, Inc. ‘No. 74-1477 datigation | transierved single {Qoiion
| ’ Patricia N. Hendrix v. Eastern Civil Action “pending in another digtriet to fhe dis- i	Kir Linas, inc. Mo. 74-1576 . , rs . . . a
| a - Ct pe: trict fn which fhe six actions word pends	| . © Royal 7. Hendrix, ITT v. Eastern Civil Action ] Ys .	! ‘a fin Lore poasllmated av eonzsiicsted nye- -
| . Air tines, inc. No, 74-1462 ing for coovdinglen OF COBISIGATIL DIT
. Scott R. Johnson, ei. v. £astern Civil Action . {rial procesdings, since actions TAVIS
: Air Lings, Inc. Mo. 74-1479 : PR , SC oe
| Ce ns . comrnon questions of Jact and tne lrans- :
Linda Gail Schulze v. Eastern Air Civil Action ” ia . Ce
Lines, inc. , No. 74-1640 for would best serve convenienid oi par-
Jean J. McFali, etc. v. Eastern Civil Action ties and witnesses and promoie ihe just
. wie Linas In k lg. 75-12 A J EE TIE =
. Ale Lines, SRC } No. 75732 and cificient conduct of litigation. 23
oe James L. Schulze, Jr. v. Eastern Civil Action TS CUAL § 1407 we .
H a Air Lines, Inc. : feo. 74-1641 REC R-ROR WI EA B
| . .
“ R o } 5 :

SN A Case MDL No. 200 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 3
oo PROS .
LT A H
™ CIN RE AIM CRASH, AW CHATTANGOEA, TER, KOV. 21, 5975 a5
yr... Co Clie as 395 F.8upn. 1200 (3573;
! OPINION AND ORDER tion of discovary and alminaic the noe .
| Before ALFRED P. BMURRAX, Sbhiy of conflicting pretual vwings. }
Chairpean, and JOHN MINOR WIs- We nave generally assigned ale coash .
: DOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN litigation {o ihe diswrict In which the
iE - A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, crash has owuarsed. fee, eo 7, In io :
! JOSEPH S. LORD, Iil, and STANLEY Florida Everglades Alr Disaster Liliza-
A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Pansl. tion, 360 F.lupp. 1354, 1000 (Juda :
| | MU LILISTS); In re Huntingion, yest
I Virginia, Alr Disaster Lilizition, 84% .
| PER CURIAM. F.Supp. 1400. 140% (Jud. Panifaliiin
| On November 27, 1973, a Delta Afy- 1972). There Js wo ressan	to deviate |lines DC-9. jet aircraft em route from from thet general rule in is tigation.
Atlanta, Georgia, to Chatlenooga, Tens ue crash Cecurrea Within oe Basen
. nessee, crashed while making an ap- District of Tammi nid many of the
| proach to the Chaltznooga, Tennessee, FoEvVent aocuiments and andcipaied wi
: Municipal Airport. As a result of the 1e39%s, including ail of the round aud
| ~ crash, S88 passengers and four evew hyOS% OLLal DASICLREr eyewl.nesses, aro
members were injured; there were no <UCALCG acre :
. fatalities. Seven actions arising from It is therefove ordered thal the action
the incident are ‘currently pending in listed (8) the aifachiad ‘Schedule Aad
two different districts: six in the Bast- pending in the Middle District of Fievil- | .
: ern District of Tennessee and one in the da be, and the same hereby is, irans- |
5 Middle District of Florida. ferred fo the Eastern Districy of Ven
i Defendant Pelt es ihe Panel for nesses and, with the consent of that
I. | eiengant Lena moves i BARS ROT court, assigned to the Memorable Frank ’
FL an order trangering Lue FlorMGA BCUOL wr Wilson for coordinated or conselidni-
fe to the aasern District or 4 CTREssee Ted preivisl procecaings pursuant to 55
! ‘ coordinated or consoildated preuias PIO 18.0. § 1407 with the actions Listed on
E= ceedings pursuant.to Section 1407 with genadele A that ave pending in that ise
| the actions already pending there. No irict. Co
one opposes the motion. On the basis of ’ N | :
the papers filed, we find that these ze- : SCHEDULE A . :
tions invelve.common questions of fact rin mein Lo RE
! and that transfer of the Florida action LURE UBC of runs
| to the Bastern District of Tennessee for J To Fobats, Sev. Deita Cull Acticn
| vs nl Boda con ET ne Air Linzgs, Tne. No. TE~700 Civ. TK.
coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro- Estern Disuict of Veimuuios .
ceedings pursuant to 28 USL. § 1407 —ii—re—e—
will best serve the convenience of the -r f+ McWhirter v. Deita Air Civil Action	: . N tines, Inc. No, 1-74-207
parties and witnesses and promote the Clemencia & irving Sackari- Civil Action ’
just and efficient conduct of the litiga- assn v. Deita Air Uses, Inc. Ko. 1-74-220
: ; tion. G. 7. Sixes v. Daita Air Lines, Civil Action .
i inc, No, 1-754
| : As is usually the case in mullidistrict james Roiph Bonner v. Dsita Civil Action :
: To air digaster litigation, common faeius] Air Lines, Inc No. 1-74-2306 }
questions abound among these actions-on Frasklin [Haney vo Delta Civil Action i
the issue of Habilily. "Thus, Section oF Hie Inc cl No. SSA
To 1407 proceedings will prevent Quplica- oar fp APECWRIe Ge, Chi Actin	3 & i ta Ar Lines, inc. Ro. 1-75-221
. ) ’ . @
. ~ '

» »
Ras I . Case MDL No. i
oo 0. 200 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 3
RE I } rr rd er em }
=~ }
o- I	4 as C. 405 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
consolianies pretrial proceedings in or- :
| oC der to prevent inconsistent rulings and In re SUGAS INDUSTRY ANTITRUST; promote judicial efficiency. See, e.g. LITIGATION.In re Mullidistrict Private Civil Treble
Damage Litigation Involving Plumbing 120, Huds Sr, ct al. v. Savannah Iruodx
3 Fictures, 308 F.Supp. 242, 243-44 (Jud. do Cadustrics, Ine. et alePan Mult.Lit. 1670): In re Multidistrict. D. South Ce ina, Civil Action No. 75-1147
Civil Antitrust Actions Involving Anti- No. 203A. . .
biotic Drugs, 299 I.Supp. 1403, 1405 Judicial Pe-el on Multidistrict Litigation.
; : {Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969) ; In re Plumb- _ing Fixture Cases, 263 E.Supp. 434, 495 Dec. 16, 197.: 95 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1958). ’
We also concur with the parties’ view The J.iicial Panel on Multidistrict
: that the Western District of Missouri Litigation. in order to minimize dupiica-| is the most appropriate transferee tion of prevrial proceedings, severed and: forum for this litigation. The action transferred claims of plaintiffs in anti-
: pending in this district is the most ex- © trust actiza involving sugar industry -tensive of the six actions, and it also against or: defendant, which transacted
} appears to be the furthest advanced. business ;-imarily in eastern Unitedit is therefore ordered that, pursuant States and which was not named in cuir-
i to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the actions listed on vently periing Califotnid litigation-but
; the following Schedule A and not pend- was SO named in Pennsylvania litigation, -ing in the Western District of Missouri to Eastern District of Pennsylvania for :
£ be, and the same hereby -are, trans- inclusion ith similar case, and trans-« Te ferred to the Western District of Mis- ferred cleims against vemaining defend-Se - sour: and, with the consent of that court, ants to Neoribern District of California,
: assizned to phe Honorable James 1. where all but one of remaining defend-
ne Gorbey, sitting by designation pursuant ants transacted business primarily in .
== to 23 U.S.C. § 252(b), Tor coordinated western Uaited States, claims againstor consolidated pretrial proceedings with such defendants involved factual issues
the action pending in that district and | similar iv those involved in California
listed on Schedule AL litigation. and transfer as to remaining
. SCHEDULE A Lo defendars, which transacted business inTT . both casiern and western United States, }
Eastern District of Arkansas increased likelihood that ‘cast-west di-Van-S-Aviation Corp. v. Memphis Civil Action . . era x eg ,
_ Aero Corp. et 2. No. LR-75-C-107 chotomy, which was justified by sub-
i Northern District of Georgia stantial distinction between defendants,	Van-S-Aviation Corp. v. Epervita, Civil Action markets «nd economic and conspiratorial i
fac. No. € 75-803A issues, would remain intact. :Eastern District of lilinois , . .
: van-S-Aviation Corp. v. Tufts Civil Action Ordered accordingly. .| Edgcumbe, Inc, et al. No. 75-2-050 ° .
District of Connecticut \
Van-§-Aviation Corp. v. Eo W. Civil Action 1. Courts C202 - ’ on
Wiggins Airways, inc. ©. io. H75-151 In order to minimize duplication of
| District of South Carolina pretrial proceedings, claims of plaintiffs,
Va eo a Haw evinn a who alleizud that defendants had violatedWestern District of Missouri federal antitrust laws by combining {oVan-S-Aviation Corp. v. Piper Civil Action monopolize and restrain trade in sugarAircraft Corp.,	ct al. © No. 73CVel4-W—4 and by adopling and whilizing pricingstructure that resulted inunlawful price ]
« + @ Cy discrimination, against one defendant,yn Lo Cie _ + which iransacted business primarily in
® . co oo. eastern UnitedStates andwhiéh was not’ 5 wo “ v oo v Kg a . RE -