IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at John F. Kennedy International Airport on June 24, 1975

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 9
JUICE i
MULT	EE RE oySIRE Hrdar 7 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL FICE ERT N
. ON FES ’) MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FEE= 197
PATAIZIA Ding. IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER ) CLERK 57 $1 10 WARD
AT JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL ) DOCKET No./4ba7
AIRPORT ON JUNE 24, 1975 )
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 June 24, 1975, an Eastern Air Lines 727 jet aircraft,
en route from New Orleans, Louisiana, to New York, New York,
crashed on its approach to John F. Kennedy International
Airport during poor weather. One hundred thirteen of the
124 individuals on board died as a result of the crash.
Of the eleven survivors, all of whom allegedly suffered
various injuries, nine were passengers and two were crew
members. The persons aboard were residents of five states
and twelve nations.
Thirty-seven actions arising from this air disaster
have been commenced in four federal district courts: 23 in
the Southern District of New York: seven in the Eastern
* Judges Murrah and Weinfeld were unable to attend
the Panel hearing and, therefore, took no part
in the consideration or decision of this matter.
xk
~ Judge Wisdom recused himself and, therefore, took
no part in the consideration or decision	of this matter.

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 9
. ’ _ 2 -
District of Louisiana; five in the Eastern District of
. New York; and two in the Southern District of Mississippi.
Plaintiffs in these actions are comprised of injured
passengers, relatives of deceased passengers and adminis-
trators of decedents' estates. Defendants are Eastern,
The Boeing Company, which manufactured the ill-fated air-
craft, and the administrator of the estate of the airplane's
deceased captain. In addition, defendant Eastern has filed
third-party claims against the United States in three of
the actions that are pending in the Southern District of |
New York. Plaintiffs are proceeding on various theories
of negligence, willful misconduct, products liability and
absolute liability. Compensatory and punitive damages
are sought.
Defendant Eastern moves the Panel for an order trans-
ferring all actions to the Eastern District of New York
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407. 4 All responding parties agree on
the obvious need for Section 1407 treatment, but disagree
over the appropriate situs for the transferee court.
Defendant Boeing and plaintiffs in the Eastern District
of New York actions concur with Eastern's choice. Plaintiffs
y Defendant Eastern's motion was supplemented on
three occasions by itself and certain plaintiffs,
whereby additional lawsuits were included for
consideration by the Panel.

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 9
. Ca
in seventeen of the Southern District of New York actions
) and defendant United States favor transfer to either the
Southern or Eastern Districts of New York, while the
plaintiffs in two other actions pending in the Southern
District of New York maintain that that district is the
only appropriate transferee forum. Plaintiffs in the
Louisiana and Mississippi actions request transfer of all
actions to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer to the Eastern District
of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings under Section 1407 will best serve the conven-
ience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation.
The most adamant opposition to movant's proposed
transferee forum comes from the plaintiffs who seek trans-
fer of all actions to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
While these plaintiffs recognize that the Panel generally
transfers actions spawned by an air disaster to the district
in which the crash occurred, which in this litigation is
the Eastern District of New York, they argue that the Panel
has deviated from this rule whenever persuasive reasons
have demonstrated it prudent to do so, and such is the case
here. In support of their position, the Louisiana proponents
argue as follows: the majority of passengers involved in

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 9
. ‘ - 4 -
: this air crash were residents of Louisiana, Mississippi
i and Alabama; most of the Eastern,Boeing, Federal Aviation
Administration and various weather personnel knowledgeable
about either the design, manufacture or maintenance of
the aircraft or the proper airport and flight-crew operat-
ing procedures during inclement weather reside closer to
Louisiana than to New York; the majority of the southern
plaintiffs’ anticipated expert witnesses reside closer to
Louisiana than to New York; the court calendar in the
Eastern District of New York is far more congested than
the one in the Eastern District of Louisiana; and transfer
of the southern lawsuits to a New York district would work
a financial hardship on these plaintiffs, in contrast to
the superior resources of defendants. One of the Louisiana
plaintiffs adds that the necessity to apply Louisiana law
in his action is another reason for selecting the Louisiana
forum. The parties favoring solely the Southern District
of New York as the transferee forum maintain that that
district is preferable simply from the standpoint of conven-
ience to counsel,
We have not been persuaded to deviate from our "situs
of the crash" rule in this litigation and,therefore; select
the Eastern District of New York as the most appropriate
transferee forum. Indeed, on the basis of the record before
us, there are a number of reasons to adhere to this principle.

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 9
. Cs
Most of the anticipated key witnesses on the issue of
: liability reside near Kennedy Airport,	for example:
the FAA air traffic controllers from the airport control
tower, traffic controllers from the New York Common I.F.R.
Room and the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center,
local weather observers and forecasters, Port of New York
Authority officials responsible for supervising the
airport's operations,	and approximately forty eyewitnesses.
Moreover, the tape recordings of conversations between
the traffic controllers and the flight-crew, as well as
other relevant documents from the FAA and the National
Weather Service, are located in the East ern District of
New York. And Judge Henry Bramwell, to whom all the
Eastern District of New York actions are assigned, has
had an opportunity to become familiar with the issues
involved in this litigation, which will enable him
to supervise it toward its most just and expeditious
termination.
We share the southern plaintiffs' concern to minimize
the overall expenses in this litigation but we are canfident that
those parties can experience a net savings of time, effort
and expenses by Section 1407 treatment in the Eastern
District of New York and the accompanying utilization of
techniques recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation.

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 9
. . - 6 -
) For example, since all plaintiffs share virtually identical
. interests concerning the issue of liability, the judicious
use of liaison counsel, lead counsel and steering committees
could streamline the entire pretrial operation and even
eliminate any need for most counsel to travel to the trans-
feree district. See Manual for Complex Litigation,
Part I, §§1.90-1.93 (rev. ed. 1973).
Finally, we note that it is within the very nature
of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
multidistrict litigation for the transferee judge
to be called upon to apply the law of more than one state.
See, e.g.,	In re Air Crash Disaster at Boston, Massachu-
setts, on July 31, 1973, 399 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Mass. 1975).
Thus, plaintiff can be assured that Louisiana law, as well
as any other state's law, if appropriate, will be duly
applied by the transferee judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on
the following Schedule A and pending in districts other
than the Eastern District of New York be, and the same
hereby are, transferred to the Eastern District of New York
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honor-
able Henry Bramwell for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.s.c. §1407 with the actions
listed on Schedule A and pending in that district.

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 9
: + SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO, 227
* EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
© Joseph Dispenza, etc. v. Eastern Civil Action
Airlines, et:i.al. No. 75-2412
Ernest Glenn Windbourne v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 75-2715
Florence Cathy Lepetit v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines No. 75-2203
Linda Arely-Alas DaRocha Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines No. 75-2049
Sidney C. Schoenberger, et al. v. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, et al. No. 75-2716
Mrs. Evelyn H. Domangue, et al. v. Civil Action
Fastern Air Lines, et al. No. 75-3006
Millard G. Boyer, et al. v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, et al. No. 75-3163
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Efstratios Stratis v. Eastern Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 75 C 1151
Arthur Marchesi and Nancy Marchesi v. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ 1218
Arthur Marchesi and Nancy Marchesi, etc. Civil Action
v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 1451
Grigorios Georgakis v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ 1511
Arthur D. Marchesi v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 75 civ. 1196
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
Berlin Ladner, etc. v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 875-153	(n)
Gracie Earline Searls Farmer, et al. Civil Action
v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. S875-212(c)

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 9
> _ 2 —
) SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
. Bernice Wolff Norman, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 3221
Marilyn F. D'Amelio, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 3743
Rosemary W. McCarthy, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 3790
Ann Toback, etc. v. Eastern Air Civil Action
Lines v. U.S.A. No. 75 Civ. 3582
John R. Cassata et ux v. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. No. 75 Civ. 4607
Luigi Simon Behar Gabay Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, et al. No. 75 Civ. 4701
Tierney A. O'Rourke,etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4702
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4703
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4704
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4705
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4706
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4707
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 civ. 4708
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4709
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4710

Case MDL No. 227 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 9
°° : - 3 -
* Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4711
" r7Pierney A. O'Rourke, etc. v. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4712
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4713
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4714
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc.,cet al. No. 75 Civ. 4715
Tierney A. O'Rourke, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc., et al. No. 75 Civ. 4875
Kathleen G. Mattingly, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc. No. 75 Civ. 5008
Marjorie DeMario, etc. V. Civil Action
Eastern Airlines, Inc. No. 75 Civ. 5009