IN RE: Bomb Disaster at Roseville, California, on April 28, 1973

Te Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 12
Unie :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL TOS hon
MULTIDISTRIOT LITIGATION BUG 15 1975
CALIFORNIA, ON APRIL 28, 1973 ) Docker NAEAGTHE	PRL
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED Pp. 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
I. Background of the Litigation
On April 28, 1973, a day-long series of explosions
shook the city of Roseville, California. The explosions, which
were caused by the accidental detonation of a train of bomb-
laden boxcars, resulted in personal injuries, heavy damage to
real and personal property and the evacuation of approximately
35,000 people.
According to our records, 71 actions arising from the
explosions are currently pending in three federal district courts:
65 in the Eastern District of California, five in the District
of Nevada and one in the Central District of California. In addi-
tion, several actions are pending in California state courts.
Seventy of the federal actions involve claims for
damages in the aggregate exceeding $70 million, while the remain-
ing federal action involves a claim for injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs in these actions are individuals, businesses and
~ %* Blthough Judges Wisdom, Robson and Becker were unable
to attend the Panel hearing, they have, with the consent
of all parties, participated in this decision.

- ‘ Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 12
- 2 =
government bodies who allegedly sustained damages as a result of
the explosions and insurers who have paid claims arising out of
the explosions. The major defendants are the United States of
America (maker and owner of the bombs), the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company (owner of the train and railroad yard
where the detonations occurred) and Pullman-Standard Division
of Pullman, Inc. (maker of the boxcars). In one action, Southern
Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States of America,	D. Nevada,
Civil Action No. Civ. R-74-16-BRT, two of these defendants are
contesting the issues of liability, indemnification and contribution.
II. Proceedings Before the Panel
Every federal action is before the Panel for Section
1407 consideration as a result of a motion filed on behalf of
plaintiffs in fifteen actions and a show cause order issued by
the Panel. The moving plaintiffs urge the Panel to transfer
all the actions to the Eastern District of california or, in
the alternative, the District of Nevada. Although the Panel
received a number of responses from certain plaintiffs either
partially or totally opposing the motion, counsel for movants
stated during oral argument before the Panel that he was author-
ized to advise us that all plaintiffs except those in three
actions now favor transfer to the Eastern District of California.
Defendants United States and Southern Pacific support transfer
to that district of all actions except one. Defendant Pullman
totally opposes transfer.

. : Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 12
- 3 ~
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer to the Eastern District of Cali-
fornia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings |
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 will best serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation.
III. Arguments of the Parties Partially or Totally Opposing
the Motion
Although both Southern Pacific and the United States
admit the existence of numerous common questions of fact among
all these actions, they oppose transfer of the Southern.
Pacific action. They contend that discovery is more advanced
in Southern Pacific than in the other actions; that the action
will be ready for trial in early 1976; and that its prompt reso-
lution will settle the liability issues between the two primary
defendants, which, in turn, will lead to the most expeditious
termination of the rest of the litigation. These parties voice
the fear that transfer of Southern Pacific will unnecessarily
hinder its progress to the detriment of the entire litigation
and they suggest that the pretrial proceedings in this
action would be delayed by the presence of additional counsel.
In addition, Southern Pacific and the United States argue that
many of the benefits of transfer are contained in their proposed
stipulation that all discovery accomplished in Southern Pacific
may be used in any other action relating to these bomb explosions.

- ‘ Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 12
- 4 -
Southern Pacific even stipulated at the Panel hearing that it will
be bound by any adverse decision in Southern Pacific on the issue
of liability and that thereafter the only remaining issue in other
actions will be the amount of damages sustained by each plaintiff.
Pullman opposes any transfer under Section 1407 and
argues that no common factual issues exist, insofar as Pullman
is concerned, because the actions in which it is named as a defend-
ant are founded upon legal theories different from those asserted
against the other defendants. Pullman maintains that it should
not be drawn into complex litigation involving over 70 actions
when it is a party in only nine of these actions. Also, it con-
tends that transfer would interfere with the rapid adjudication
of all actions, would cause Pullman to incur unnecessary expenses
and would not prevent duplicative discovery.
The three plaintiffs who oppose transfer argue that
the best alternative is to wait for the resolution of Southern
Pacific and then proceed individually on the question of
damages.
IV. The Question of Trans fer
We are persuaded that all the actions in this litigation,
including Southern Pacific, belong	in a single district for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Section
1407. As all parties except Pullman recognize, every action
shares common factual issues inasmuch as they all arose out of
a single disaster and contain many similar allegations with
respect to the liability of defendants. Although we realize

: : Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 12
- 5 =
that discovery in Southern Pacific is at a significantly more
advanced stage than in the other actions, both of the parties
in that action concede that more discovery is required before
the action is ready for trial. Hence, the uncompleted discovery
therein can be accomplished under the direction of the transferee
judge to the benefit of the entire litigation. And in case the
parties are unable to effectuate a stipulation that the discovery
heretofore completed in Southern Pacific may be used in all other
actions, the transferee judge may take measures to make such
discovery applicable to those actions by utilizing the procedures
recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Part I, §3.1l1
(rev. ed. 1973). Thus, transfer of all actions to a single
district will ensure the prevention of duplicative discovery and
also eliminate the possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings.
In addition, we do not perceive any harm that defendant Pullman
will suffer by a Section 1407 transfer since the actions in which
it is named as a defendant are already pending in the transferee
district.
Transfer under Section 1407 will have the salutary effect
of placing all actions before a single judge who will be in the
best position to determine the manner and extent of coordination
or consolidation of the pretrial proceedings for the optimum
conduct of the litigation as a whole, especially regarding the
processing of Southern Pacific in relation to the rest of the
litigation. See In re Equity Funding Corporation of America
Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1384 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
w

. . Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 12
- 6 -
Too, a single judge with an overall perspective of the entire
litigation will be able to formulate a pretrial schedule that
will minimize the overall expense to the parties and avoid the
delay feared by the defendants. For example, the transferee
judge can order the parties to conduct discovery through lead
and liaison counsel, thereby resulting in streamlined pretrial
proceedings that will accrue to the advantage of everyone concerned.
See Manual for Cemplex Litigation, Part I, §§1.90 -1.93 (rev. ed.
1973).
When Southern Pacific is, in fact, ready for trial,
the transferee judge may suggest that the Panel remand the action
to the District of Nevada, see R.P.J.P.M.L. 11, 65 F.R.D. 253,
260-63 (1975), or the transferee judge may, if he deems it appropri-
ate, transfer the action for all purposes to the transferee or
other district under 28 U.S.C. §§1404(a) or 1406, see Pfizer, Inc. Vv,
Lord, 447 F.2d 122 (24 cir. 1971).
Vv. Selection of the Transferee District
Clearly, the Eastern District of California is the most
appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. A vast majority
of the actions are already pending in that district. And much
of the discovery will occur there because it is the situs of
the explosions and the residence of many of the parties and
witnesses. Moreover, Chief Judge Thomas J. MacBride, to whom
most of the actions in the Eastern District of California are
assigned, has become acquainted with the issues involved in
this litigation, which will enable him to supervise it toward
its most just and expeditious conclusion. Furthermore, since

: : Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 12
- 7 =
several actions are pending in California state courts, transfer
of all federal actions to California will provide an opportunity
for the federal and California state courts to coordinate the
discovery efforts in the two jurisdictions and thereby greatly
facilitate the processing of the various actions arising out of
the explosions. See In re Air Crash Disaster Near Silver Plume,
Colorado, on October 2, 1970, 352 F. Supp. 968, 969 (J.P.M.L.
1972); cf. In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on
December 29, 1972, 360 ¥. Supp. 1394, 1395-96 (J.P.M.L. 1973).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on
the following Schedule A and pending in districts other than
the Eastern District of California be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Eastern District of California.and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Thomas J.
MacBride for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions pending in that
district and listed on Schedule A.

- : Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 12
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 207
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
L,os Angeles By-Products Co. Vv. Civil Action
United States of America No. Civ. 75-886-AAH
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
John Bracy, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. R75-10-BRT
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. Civil Action
v. United States of America No. R74-16~-BRT
The 0ld Republic Insurance Co. V. Civil Action
United States of America No. R~75~15~BRT
Safeway Stores, Inc, v. United States Civil Action
of America No. R-75-22-BRT
Martin Bechtel, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. R~75-35-BRT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Allstate Insurance Co., et al. v. Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. Civ. S§74-722
Pedro Ayala, et al. v. United States Civil Action
ef America, et al. No. Civ. 874-172
Martin Bechtel, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. §74-599
Charles L. Bobbitt, et al. v. Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. Civ. §74-111
Margarito S. Chavez v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. Civ. 574-78
Margarito S. Chavez v. United States Civil Action
of America No. Civ. 574-681
Nina D. Compo, etc. v. United States . Civil Action
of America No. Ciw. S74-724
Karel Harrod, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. Civ. S75-156
George A. Leggett v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. Civ. S3005

7 Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 12
- 2 -
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA w
National American Insurance Co. of Omaha, Civil Action
et al. v. United States of America, et al. No. Civ. S74-632
Joseph M.Pujals, et al. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co., et al. No. Civ. §-2911
Reserve Insurance Co. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. Civ. S75-84
Sentry Insurance Co. Vv, United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. S75-180
Darla Mae Walker v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co. No. Civ. S574-128
John Belche, et al. v. The United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. 574-148
James B. Adams, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. 874-268
Norman Edwards v. The United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. 874-211
Robert A. Durgin, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. S74-124
Marion Louise Campos v. United States Civil Action
of America,	et al. No. Civ. S§74-170
Myron L. Fulkerson, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No, Civ. §74-171
Unigard Insurance Group v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co., et al. No. Civ. S74-551-TdM
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. S74-731-PCW
A.J. Labruzzo v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ, §74-661-TJM
Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., et al. ve Civil Action
Southern Pacific Railroad, et al. No. Civ. §74-734-TJM
Antonio C. Bermudez, Jr., et al. v. Civil Action
Southern Pacific Transportation Co., et al. No. Civ. S74-733-TdM
Philip L. Ott & Son, Inc. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. 875-35-TJM

RE Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 10 of 12
-— 3 -—
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Doyle Brown v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. S§74-149
People of the State of California, etc. Vv. Civil Action
The United States of America, et al. No. Civ. S75=«15-TJM
Mission Insurance Co. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ, 874-716
Herman Klein, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ, S75-143-TJM
United Services Automobile Assn., et al. v. Civil Action
United States Department of Navy, et al. No. Civ. S75-20-PCW
Charles Sales, Jr. v. The United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. S74-703-TJM
Leora M. Farmer v, Southern Pacific Civil Action
Railroad Co., et al. No. Civ. 874-169
Noni Seeger, et al. v. The United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. §75-186-TJM
Laurel Stizzo v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. @iv. 875-260
The American Star Ins. Co., etc. Vv. Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. Civ. 875-253-TIM
Robert T. Baker, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. S74-178-TJM
George N. Spurr, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. S§75-115-TdM
Bessie Sutter v. The United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. 875-116~-TIM
Richard Eugene Todd, et al. v. The Civil Action
United States of America, et al. No. Civ. 875-214-TJdM
Jo Ellen Nordyke v. The United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ, S§75-215=TJM
Annie Barca v. The United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Giv+:875-216-TJdM
George G. Barca, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. S75-213-TdM

Se Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 11 of 12
- 4 -
Teresa Urban v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. No. Civ. 874-562
Juanita Blount v. United States Civil Action
of America, et al. Noe. Civ. S§74-563
Irene Anderson, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America No. Civ. 8574-177
Mary N. Davidson, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. Civ. S74-672-TJM
David Dashnaw, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. S74-176
Herman L. Perkins, et al. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co., et al. No. Civ. 874-146
Herman IL. Perkins, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. 8574-147
Loeta F. Odle, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. 874-165
Doyle B. James, et al. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Railroad Co., et al. No. Civ. S74-163
Doyle B. James, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. 574-164
Oscar B. Williams, et al. v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Railroad Co., et al. No. Civ. S74-168-TJM
Oscar B. Williams, et al. v. The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ. 574-167
Oma A. James v. The United States Civil Action
of America . No. Civ. 874-175
Bonnie L. Worthington v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co., et al. No. Civ. 874-174-TJM
Irving Gum v. The United States Civil Action
of America No. Civ. S$74-607-TJM
Ruby Elaine Underwood v. Southern Pacific Civil Action
Transportation Co., et al. No. Civ. S74-173-TJM
Barbara Ann Ashburn v. Southern Civil Action
Pacific Transportation Co., et al. No. Civ. S74-162

7 Case MDL No. 207 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 12 of 12
- 5 ~
Northwestern National Insurance Group, Civil Action
et al. v. United States of America No. Civ. S875-50-TJM
Barbara E. Compton	v., The United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No. Civ, S§74-179
County of Sacramento, etc. v. United Civil Action
States of America, et al. No, Civ. S74-538-TJdM
Mary D. Bennett v. United States Civil Action
of America,	et al. No. €iv. 874-561
Loeta F. Odle, et al. v. Southern Pacific Civil Action
Railroad Co., et al. No. Civ. S74-166