IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Bali, Indonesia, on April 22, 1974

: Case MDL No. 215 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 5
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL puis SE
C- } oN FlLEn
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION SEP 18 1875
DN enin, on apmIr 22. 1074 ) DOCKEDBaro
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
A Boeing 707 aircraft, being operated as Pan American Flight
No. 812, crashed into a mountain on the Island of Bali, Indonesia,
on April 22, 1974. All 96 passengers and eleven crew members
died as a result of the crash. Fourteen actions arising from
this disaster have since been filed in four federal district
courts: seven in the Central District of California, five in
the Northern District of California, and one each in the Southern
District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia.
In addition, three actions are currently pending in New York
state courts.
Four actions pending in three of the federal courts are
each brought as purported class actions on behalf of the person-
al representatives, survivors, heirs, next of kin and benefici-
aries of all decedents.
The federal actions are before the Panel as a result of
two motions by various plaintiffs to transfer the actions to
-
* Judge Weigel recused himself and took no part in the
consideration or decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 215 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 5
- -2-
oo a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Plaintiffs in three actions
move for transfer to the Northern District of California, while
plaintiffs in four actions move for transfer to the Southern
District of New York. All responding parties recognize the need
for transfer of this litigation under Section 1407 but disagree
over which district is the appropriate transferee forum. Plain-
tiffs in two actions concur with the motion for transfer to the
Northern District of California. Defendants Pan Am and Boeing
support transfer to the Southern District of New York. Defendants
Collins Radio Co., Borg-Warner Corp. and Northrop Corp. prefer
the Northern District of Iowa or, in the alternative, the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiff in one action favors the Eastern
District of Virginia or, in the alternative, the Southern District
of New York.
These actions clearly share common questions of fact and
we find that their transfer to the Central District of California
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under
Section 1407 will best serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
iva
litigation.
The proponents of transfer to the Northern District of
California contend that the San Francisco forum is preferable
BY The parties to all actions waived their right to oral argu-
ment and, pursuant to R.P.J.P.M.L. 14, 65 F.R.D. 253, 264
(1975), the question of transfer of this litigation under
28 U.S.C. §1407 was submitted on the briefs.

Case MDL No. 215 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 5
NE ~ 3 -
because it is geographically the most convenient for the parties
and witnesses, especially since counsel will need to travel to
Bali for discovery purposes. Moreover, they assert that much
discovery will take place in that district because Pan Am has a
major facility in San Francisco and the cockpit crew was based
there.
Those who favor transfer to the Southern District of New York
argue that most of the discovery will occur there inasmuch as
Pan Am's training and personnel records for the flight crew,
its maintenance records for navigational equipment aboard the
aircraft, and its flight procedure manuals are all located in
New York. Moreover, they inform us that, pursuant to an agree-
ment that has been reached between the attorneys for 49 of the 96
passenger decedents and the attorneys for Pan Am and the deceased
pilots' estates, Pan Am will produce its employees for depositions
and its documents for inspection in New York. In addition, Pan Am
points out that transfer to New York will provide an opportunity
for the federal and New York state courts to coordinate the dis-
covery efforts in the two jurisdictions.
The one plaintiff urging transfer to the Eastern District
of Virginia asserts that that forum will be convenient for the
key witnesses, the team of National Transportation Safety Board
personnel who investigated the wreckage. He also contends that
the Eastern District of Virginia is the most appropriate trans-
feree forum since Boeing has offices in that locale and discovery
is underway in the action pending there.

Case MDL No. 215 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 5
“os -4 -
Three defendants favor the Northern District of Iowa even
though no actions are presently pending in that district. They
argue that the Iowa forum is the most convenient because it is
centrally located to the various points in the country where
discovery will take place. Defendant Collins Radio also notes
that its principal office is in Iowa.
Any of the federal districts wherein actions are pending
could, in our view, be described as an appropriate transferee forum
for this litigation. On balance, however, we are persuaded that
the Central District of California is the preferable choice
because more actions are pending in this district than in any of
the others. We certainly commend the parties who have voluntarily
agreed to conduct pretrial discovery proceedings in New York and
we see no reason why such cooperation cannot continue. And,
of course, regardless of our decision to transfer all actions to
California, the depositions of the parties and witnesses will
likely occur in proximity to their residences. Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d) (2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the
following Schedule A and pending in districts other than the
Central District of California be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Central District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable David W.
Williams 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. 215 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5
- SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 215
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
John Paul Causey, Jr., etc. v. Pan American Civil Action
world Airways, Inc., et al. No. 74-0428-R
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Alice E. Wolcott, et al. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 1704-IBW
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Collins Radio Co., Civil Action
Paul A. Eisler, etc. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. (75-772~-SAW
Maureen Keating, et al. v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action
et al. No. (75-785-1LHB
William Lawrence Zinke, et al. v. Collins Civil Action
Radio Co., et al, No. ¢75-779-ACW
Marianne Schroeder, et al. v. Collins Radio Civil Action
Co. ’ et al. No. C75~564~-WHO
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
John P. Causey, Jr., etc. v. Lee B. Zinke, Civil Action
et al. No. CV75-1364-DWW
Hamilton Lister Catchlove, et al. v. Civil Action
Pan American World Airways, Inc. No. Cv75-1184-DwWw
Floyd A. Demanes, etc. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV74-3662-MML
Paul A. Eisler, etc. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV75-553-MML
Ni Ketut Campling, et al. v. Lee B. Zinke, Civil Action
et al. No. CV75-1349-DWW
Beryl W. Slater, et al. v. Lee B. Zinke, Civil Action
et al. No. CV75-1339-DWW
Nesta Reymond, et al. v. Lee B. Zinke, et al. Civil Action
No. CV75-1370-DWW