IN RE: Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation Material Products Liability Litigation

— Tr 7 TT TEER Re . . < i
CT Case MDL No. 269 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page Te
to : : BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL © a .. : a.
: MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 72 “a we Lo	’ + oid : : UT Lo
Su IN RE ASBESTOS AND ASBESTOS INSULATION ) DOCKET NGZ726% 1 ETMATERIAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) Cote=r Co Sl
OPINION AND ORDER Po
i . : Y/7| | - | [7)m
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, Ce |
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, EE IE
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE EN EH
PANEL. g Co he
PER CURIAM a oo > | B
~ This litigation consists of 103 actions pending in
~ nineteen districts. The distribution of these actions is SE
+ as follows: - . a : Co
| . | Northern District of Ohio. 23 |
" Southern District of Texas : ‘ 20 :
District of Connecticut - «le, Co
- .. ‘Eastern District of Texas = S12
oo ‘District	of South Carolina a A
’ : District of New Jersey . : SE ;
Southern District of Florida - ~~. .. - = -4
~~ Eastern District of Illinois 2 :
: Eastern District of Michigan - 2
oo . District of Montana . 2 -
Eastern District of Tennessee SER 1
: Western District of Pennsylvania’ I
Co Bastern District of Pennsylvania Sr Con
Eastern District of Missouri = .- : hE Lo
Eastern District of Louisiana - 1- Ce
District	of Rhode Island 1
Southern District of Indiana : RE SE
District of Maryland . . 1
Southern District of West Virginia ] 1
| The 103 actions have been brought by workers who were
exposed to asbestos dust in the course of their employment,
or by persons associated with those workers, either as So

TEI Case MDL No. 269 Documerg	2— Filed 05/04/15 Page	2 of 17
. © co-workers or as members of the family. Many diverse types
| 1/
¢ of vocational exposure are involved in these actions.
1/The specific type of vocational exposure alleged in each
action or group of actions is as follows:
Actions
- District Involved Type of Vocational Exposure
S.D. Texas 19 Individual tradesmen -- insulation
workers using a variety of asbestos
: products over the course of up to:
' 40 years :
1 Weaver	in textile mill
producing fabrics from asbestos
fibers
E.D. Texas 9 Individual tradesmen =-- insul-
ation workers using a variety of
insulation products ovar the course
of up to 50 years
3 Employees at PPG Plant in Tyler,
Texas	producing asbestos products
N.D. Ohio 23 Individual tradesmen -- mechanics
: exposed to asbestos and asbestos
( : insulation materials over periods
of	up to 40 years.
D. Connecticut 16 Employees working as or with pipe-
- laggers in boat construction and
repair yard of General Dynamics Corp.
D. New Jersey 2 Purported class actions
on behalf of 2500 workers at a now
defunct Raybestos~Manhattan plant
in Passaic, N.J., which manufactured
. asbestos products
3 One purported class action on behalf
: of employees of Johns-Manville plant
in Manville, N.J.; two individual
. actions brought by workers at
that plant .
1 Truck driver who delivered pro-
ducts produced at a Johns-Manville
- plant
D. South Carolina 7 Individual insulation workers
- S.D. Florida 4 Individual insulation installers
E.D. Louisiana 1 * Worker in plant manufacturing
: asbestos floor tile

' - 3. -_
Ct Case MDL No. 269 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 17
Plaintiffs in most of the actions are or were workers	at plants
¢ which produce asbestos products (the factory worker actions),
or tradesmen who work with a variety of asbestos products
(the tradesman actions). A majority of the tradesmen
are installers	of insulation products containing
asbestos. Ninety-four of the actions are tradesman actions
and nine of the actions are factory worker actions.
Six of the actions were brought as class actions
onbehalf of employees at three different plants that manu-
facture or once manufactured asbestos products. Three of
the actions in the Eastern District of Texas were brought
as class actions on behalf of employees at a PPG oo
Industries plant in Tyler, Texas. Class certification=
has been denied in these three actions. = The other
@ three purported class actions are pending in the District
of New Jersey, see note 1, supra, Two are brought on behalf
1/Continued: oo [EE
Actions
District Involved Type of Vocational Exposure _
~ E.D. Pennsylvania 1 ~~ Salesman of insulation products
for Johns-Manville
W.D. Pennsylvania 1 Employee	of distributor of
insulation products
E.D. Michigan 1. Employee of distributor of
insulation products :
1 Individual insulation worker
E.D. Missouri 1 Individual insulation worker
E.D. Tennessee 1 Individual insulation
worker
E.D. Tllinois 2 Individual insulation workers
D. Montana : 2 Individual insulation workers
D. Rhode = 1 Individual insulation worker
Island
IN MA A eee ————
D. Maryland =. . 1 Individual insulation worker
S.D. Indiana 1 Individual insulation worker
© TN Te TTT
( S.D. West 1 Individual insulation workerVirginia
—

a oo Case MDL No. 269 Docunterft 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 17
. of employees of Raybestos Manhattan, Inc. at a now defunct
@ plant in Passaic, New Jersey, - The other action is |or brought on behalf of employees at a Johns-Manville,
Inc. plant in Manville, New Jersey.: Class certifi-
cation is still pending in the New Jersey actions.
There are a total of 80 defendants in the 103 actions.
The majority of the defendants are manufacturers or dis-
tributors of various asbestos products. Johns-Manville is
a defendant in 91 of the along. > Seven other defendant
corporations are named in more than 50 actions, seven others
are named in more than 30 actions, and ten others are named
“in ten or more actions.
The complaints in the actions generally allege that |
the defendants wrongfully caused the plaintiffs to be exposed
@ to asbestos dust and asbestos fibers over a period of time,
| as a result of which the plaintiffs have contracted or are
in danger of contracting asbestosis, mesothelioma, or other
disorders. Alleged liability is based on the principles
of strict liability, negligence, and/or breach of warranties
of merchantability and/or fitness. It is also alleged that the
defendants knew or should have known of the dangers to persons
exposed to asbestos products, but that defendants failed
2/In addition, Johns-Manville reports that it is a defendant
in 73 state court actions arising from exposure to asbestos.
3/A discussion of the state of medical and scientific
knowledge relating to the risks associated with exposure
to asbestos in an occupational context may be found in
Borel v. Fibrehoard Paper Products Corp., 493 F. 2d 1076,
1083-86 (5th cir. 1973).
® |

) Coe Case MDL No. 269 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 17
EE : - 5 - :
| | to warn the plaintiffs of these dangers; failed to provide
@ adequate precautions. safety devices, or wearing apparel
| to prevent exposure; and/or failed to establish reasonable
standards for exposure.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(c)	(i) and Rule 8, R.P.J.P.M.L.,
65 F.R.D. 253, 258-59 (1975), the Panel issued an order to
show cause why all these actions should not be transferred
to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
&/ | 5/proceedings. =. All except one of the 55 respondents to the
Panel's order to show cause oppose transfer in this litigation.
The primary arguments presented by the parties in opposition
to transfer are the following:
(1) Many of the actions have been pending for several
_ years and are well advanced in discovery. In several
® ~ actions a discovery cutoff date or a trial date has been
set. Transfer would merely delay the progress of discovery
or the trial of those actions.
. (2) In several districts, arrangements for voluntarily
sharing the common aspects of discovery have been made among .
| the parties to the actions pending within those districts.
Transfer would cause unnecessary additional expenses
which can be avoided by voluntary coordination of efforts
among the parties. oo
(3) There is a lack of commonality among the parties
in: these actions. | :
4/Since	the Panel hearing on this matter, the Panel has been
advised that additional actions involving asbestos have been filed.
5/That party, Defense Apparel, Inc., a defendant	in two actions,
[ merely withdrew a previously-expressed opposition to transfer;
it did not present any arguments in favor of transfer.

| : - - Case MDL No. 269 Documeng 2— Filed 05/04/15 Page	6 of 17
: (a) There is considerable variation in named
@ defendants from action to action. No defendant or
category of defendants is a party to all actions.
Defendants include manufacturers of asbestos products,
distributors of asbestos products, insurance companies,
doctors, suppliers of raw asbestos fibers, trade
associations, trade unions, and the United States of
America.
: (b) The plaintiffs are not a homogeneous group.
' They include insulation workers involved in the in=-
stallation or removal of insulation products, workers
in factories manufacturing asbestos products, co-workers,
members of workers' families, and persons living in the
proximity of asbestos manufacturing facilities.
® (4) Although a common thread among these actions is
exposure to some type of asbestos.	or asbestos product,
the circumstances of exposure are predominantly individual
to each action. The variables include the following:
(a) type of vocational exposuze (e.g. =- miner,
transporter, factory worker, or tradesman):
(b) products to which. exposed;
(c) conditions of exposure;
(d) duration and intensity of exposure: |
- - (e) safety precautions taken by the worker:
(f) medical, personal, employment, and family
history of the worker over the long periods of exposure
@ | involved (up to 50 years).

i . EE Case MDL No. 269 Documeny2- Filed 05/04/15 Page	7 of 17
: Regarding the factory workers and tradesmen, the two
[ basic types of vocational exposure involved, the exposure
N of factory workers was to 100% raw asbestos, while the
exposure of tradesmen was to products which generally
contain about 15% asbestos. |
(5) The question of causation is an individual issue.
Several different types of disorders are alleged,
including asbestosis, lung cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma,
mesothelioma of the lining of the stomach or
gastric organs, cancer of the esophagus, cancer of the
colon, and cancer of the rectum. The question of whether
particular disorders may be attributable to exposure to a
particular type of asbestos is a matter of dispute among
medical authorities. Causation of an individual's dis-
® ability by asbestos exposure will necessarily be related
to the individual factors of length, intensity, and type
of vocational exposure, and to the physical characteristics
of the person. A considerable amount of technical medical
evidence such as diagnoses, x-rays and tissue microscopies
will be involved in each action. This evidence is of an
individual nature.
Significant differences in causation will exist between
the factory worker actions and the tradesman actions. Medical
and scientific knowledge concerning the two types of exposure
is different. The tradesmen will have been exposed to a
wider variety of asbestos products, and will need to prove
® which products caused their disabilities. |

| Co Case MDL No. 269 Documeng2_Filed 05/04/15 Page	8 of 17
) (6) The liability of each defendant in each. action is pre-
® dominantly an individual question. The variables will include the
defendants' knowledge at a particular time of the health
risks involved in exposure to asbestos, the adequacy of any
product testing by the defendant manufacturers, the suffi- |
ciency of any warnings or directions for use of products,
and the issue of assumption of risk by the plaintiffs.
Other variables will include the materials used, the :
method of manufacture, and the period of production.
(7) although a common aspect among these actions is
the state of medical and scientific knowledge at a particular
time regarding the health hazards posed by exposure to |
asbestos, this knowledge can be readily discerned from
® literature which is easily available in most medical libraries. ooThe common need for this literature is therefore not a
significant justification for transfer.
(8) Local issues will predominate in the discovery
process. The medical, personnel, and product use records
of each individual will be found locally. Liability in
these actions will be based on state substantive law. :
i As a result, transfer would not promote the parties' and
witnesses' convenience regarding discovery.
(9) There is not a significant possibility of incon-
| sistent or overlapping class action determinations since
oo any certifiable class could include only those persons |
® who were exposed to asbestos in a specific plant or in

Co Case MDL No. 269 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	9 of 17Ce - 9 -
| the service of a particular employer. The classes alleged
® to date are properly restricted, and do not overlap in any
respect. |
Although we recognize the existence of some common
"questions of fact among these actions, we find that transfer
under Section 1407 would not necessarily serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Accordingly, the order to show
| - cause is vacated. EK
The virtually unanimous opposition of the parties to
transfer, though a very persuasive factor in our decision to
deny transfer in this litigation, is not by itself determin-
ative of the question of transfer under Section 1407. In
® oo an appropriate situation, the Panel has the power to ordertransfer in multidistrict litigation even if all parties are
opposed to transfer.
We are, however, persuaded by the parties’ arguments in
this particular litigation. On the basis of the record before
- us, the only questions of fact common to all actions relate : :
: to the state of scientific and medical knowledge at different
points in time concerning the risks of exposure to asbestos.
The pertinent literature on this subject is readily available.
See generally Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp., supra
note	3, 493 F. 2d at 1083-86. Many factual questions unique
to each action or to a group of actions already pending in
a single district clearly predominate, and therefore transfer
C is unwarranted. See In re Fotomat Franchisee Litigation, 394
F. Supp. 798, 799 (J.P.M.L. 1975). Furthermore, many of these

| ) . ".. Case MDL No. 269 Document Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 17
: " actions already are well advanced. Some of the actions have
® been pending for up to four years, and trial dates or dis-
covery cutoff dates have been set in several actions. Under
these circumstances, transfer would not further the purposes
| of Section 1407. See In re Braniff Airways, Inc. Employment
Practices Litigation, 411 F. Supp. 798, 800 (J.P.M.L. 1976).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order to show cause
regarding the actions listed on the following Schedule A be,
and the same hereby is, vacated.
®
® | | |

Ce Case MDL No. 269 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 11 of 17
. oo DOCKET NO. 269
SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO :
Evelyn Roderman, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C72-390
Betty Sedlock, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering Inc., et al. C72-395
Rose Ann Ricci, etc. v. Combustion
Engineering Inc., et al. Civil Action No.C72-507
Mary C. Kearns, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering Inc., et al. Cc73-70
Mary Muntean, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C73-199
Elmer J. Measor v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C73-238
® John P. Burke v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C73-239
James E. McLaughlin v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C74-923
James P. McGinnis v. Combustion Civil Action No.
: Engineering, Inc., et al. C74-1077
Nellie V. Breedlove, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. } C74-1130
Mary Rita McNeeley, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C75-74
Reba Darlene Chaddock, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C75-102
: Elbert	H. Steele v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C75-359
o Harry T. McLaughlin v. Combustion Civil Action No.= Engineering, Inc., et al. C75=-377 :

A Case MDL No. 269 Document2 Fil
SE od Rudd	WC feshtly pz
® NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (CONT.)Robert	J. Harter v. Combustion Engineering Civil Action No.
Inc., et al. C75-452
Kenneth J. Murphy v. Combustion Engineering Civil Action No.
Inc., et al. C75-453
Roy E. Mellott v. Johns-Manville Products Civil Action No.
Corp., et al. C75-1058
Wilfred R. Baumgartner Vv. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C75-1057
Jesse Ellender Starnes, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. C76-46
John McKimmie v. Combustion Engineering, Civil Action No.
Inc., et al. C76-180
Frank R. Allore v. Combustion Engineering, Civil Action No.
et al. C76-447
Billy Joe Starnes Vv. Combustion Civil Action No.
® Engineering, et al. C76-882
Earl Jackson Grice v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, et al. C76-883
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Claude A. Dunn v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
International Corp., et al. 73-H-1072
William D. Luker, Sr., et.al. v. Johns- . Civil Action No.
Manville International Corp., et al. 75~H-342
Olga Ann Strickland, et al. wv. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
International Corp., et al. . ’ 75-H-492
F. W. Farrar v. Standard Asbestos Mang. Civil Action No.
'& Insulating Co., et al. 75-H-862
E. A. Kyburz, Jr. v. Standard Asbestos Civil Action No.
Manf. & Insulating Co.,. et al. 75-H~863
R. L. Dickey v. Standard Asbestos Manf. civil Action No.
® & Insulating Co., et al. 75~-H-864

PEE Case MDL No. 269 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 13 of 17
: Schedule A (Cont.) P.3
: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (CONT.) :
® F. Wesberry v. Standard Asbestos Manf. & Civil Action No.	Insulating Co., et al. -75-H-865
E. B. Byerly v. Standard Asbestos Manf. Civil Action No.
& Insulating Co., et al. 75-H-866
V. P. Viator v. Standard Asbestos Manf. Civil Action No.
& Insulating Co., et al. 75-H~867
A. J. Gaspard v. Standard Asbestos Manf. Civil Action No.
& Insulating Co., et al. 75~H~868
J. B. Freeman	v. Standard Asbestos Manf. & Civil Action No.
Insulating Co., et al. 75-H-869
A. J. Burke, Jr. v. Standard Asbestos Manf. Civil Action No.
& Insulating Co., et al. 75-H-870
S. Trahan v. Standard Asbestos Manf. & Civil Action No.
Insulating Co., et al. 75-H-905
H. J. Plitt v. Standard Asbestos Mant. Civil Action No.
& Insulating Co., et al. 75-H-906
H. P. Kirchner v. Standard Asbestos Mant. Civil Action No.
® & Insulating Co., et al. 75-H-1634J. F. Holton v. Standard Asbestos Manf. Civil Action No.
& Insulating Co., et al. 75-H~-1635
James J. Rosenquest v. Standard Asbestos civil Action No.
Manf. & Insulating Co., et al. 76-H-115
John R. Wesberry v. Standard Asbestos Manf. Civil Action No.
& Insulating Co., et al. 76-H-116
Clarence Simpson v. Owens Corning Fibreglass, Civil Action No.
et al. 76-H-1499
Ruby Stancil, et al. v. Southern Asbestos Civil Action No.
Co., et al. 74-H-1069
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT .
Sammie L. Gray, etc. v. General Dynamics Civil Action No.
Corp., et al. H75-327
Nicholas J. Gencarelle v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
Robert N. Ward v. Johns-Manville Corpe.. Civil Action No.
® et al. : : H76-54 :

Cee Case MDL No. 269 Document2 FiledSesiedude Fyge (Qty) P.4
J | DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (CONT.)
Allen D. Eleazer Vv. Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
® et al. H76~55
Albert J. Demers v. Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
et al. H76-56
Harry E. Sjostrom v. Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
et al. H76-57
Edward C. Duzant v. Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
et al. H76-58
Charles C. Keeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
et al. + H76-59
Henrietta C. Brown, etc. v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
Corp., et al. H76-60
Bennie L. Glover v. Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
Kim A. Brown v. General Dynamics Corp., Civil Action No.
® et al. H76-325Vivian L. Ridenour, etc. v. Johns-Manville . Civil Action No.
Corp., et al. H76-326
Frederick Paul v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al. Civil Action No.
H76-332
Omar Allvord v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al. Civil Action No.
: H76-333
Edwin W. C. King v..Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
et al. H76-337
| George W. Poole v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al. Civil Action No.H76-338
EASTERN DISTRICE OF TEXAS
Elizabeth Matthews, et al. v. Fibreboard Civil Action No.
Paper Products Corp. B073-309-CAa
. Herman Yandle, et al. v. PPG Industries, Civil Action No.
@ 1inc.. et al. TY-74-3-Ca

See Case MDL No. 269 Document2 Filed Op/Od/13, Ragedrefy? P.5
. EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS :
® Lester Kay v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al. Civil Action No.	TY-74-13-CA
Corney Jeane v. Fibreboard Corp., et al. Civil Action No.
B-74-337-CA
William B. McNeece, Jr., et al. v. United Civil Action No.
States of America TY-75-22-CA
Howard W. Boyd v. Owens-Corning Fibreglas Civil Action No.
Corp., et al. S-75-58-CA
Sam Dolce v. Fibreboard Paper Corp ., et al. Civil Action No.
B-75-191-Ca
Edward J. Palermo v. Fibreboard Paper Civil Action No.
Products Corp., et al. B-75-192-CA
Claude J. Talbot v. Fibreboard Paper Products Civil Action No.
Corp., et al. B-75-391-Ca
Preston A. Vice v. Fibreboard Corp., et al. Civil Action No.
B-76-115-CA
® A.E. Condray v. Fibreboard Corp., et al. Civil Action No.
B-76-108-CA
Clifton C. Corkran v. Fibreboard Corp., et al. Civil Action No.
B-76~128-CA
. DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
Donald Brown Clarry v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, et al. 76-1162
Wayne B. Duncan v. Combustion Engineering, Civil Action No.
et al. 76-1249
Margaret F. Taylor v. Combustion Engineering, Civil Action No.
et al. : : . 76-1247
Sara M. Taylor v. Combustion Engineering, et al. Civil Action No.
76-1241
Robert W. Quattelbaum v. Combustion Engineering, Civil Action No.
et al. 76-1239
Bobby R. Taylor v. Combustion Engineering, Civil Action No.
® et al. 76-1210
Harold Lee Taylor v. Combustion Engineering, Civil Action No.
et al. 76-1208

cre Case MDL No. 269 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 16 of 17
. . Schedule A (Cont.) P.6
". . DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY oo
® Charlie Lee Austin, et al. v. Bell Asbestos Civil Action No.
Mines Co., et al. 75-754
Catherine Mesaros, etc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., Civil Action No.
et al. 75-1049
Ionzo Murray, et al. v. Bell's Asbestos, et al. Civil Action No.
75-1475
Lillian Cicero, etc. v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
Products Corp., et al. 76-1488
Jennie Consalvo, etc. v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
Products Corp. 75-1641 :
John Argeskie, et al. v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
Products Corp., et al. 76-735
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Evellio Lopez, et al. v. Armstrong Cork Civil Action No.
Co., et al. 75-1365~-Civ-JLK
® Charles Bender v. Armstrong Cork Co., et al. Civil Action No.: 75-2578~Civ-JLK .
Moses Joyner v. Armstrong Cork Co., et al. civil Action No.75-2581~-Civ-JLK
Ruth Strange Hutson, etc. v. Armstrong Cork Civil Action No.
Co., et al. 76-53-Civ-JLK
© EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. PE
Emma Ryder, etc. v. Johns-Manville Products Civil Action No.
Corp. 763110
Hattie Phelps, etc. v. Combustion Engineering Civil Action No.
Inc., et al. 764012
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Thelma E. Carr, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering Inc., et al. 75=-72332
Wayne Johnson v. Johns-Manville Products Civil Action No.
@ Corp. 670876

oe Case MDL No. 269 Document 2 FileGs@@@diite FROedoni.	ly P.7
mond Burownes V. Johns-Manville Products Civil Action No.
® ay Cv-76-0060-BLG	Pp. Co
Norman Nicholas v. Johns-Manville Products civil Action No.
Cor CV-76-91-BLG	Pe.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ‘
| Jakie R. Starnes, et al. v. Combustion , Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. 75-122
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA :
Richard Giese, et al. v. Raybestos Civil Action No.
Manhatten, Inc. 75-1385
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Richard J. Pastor, etc. v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
EASTERN DISTRICT	OF MISSOURI :
Joseph Tretter v. Johns-Manville Corp., et al. Civil Action No.
® 76-86C(1)
EASTERN DISTRICT	OF LOUISIANA .
Clifton W. Jones, Sr. Vv. W. R. Goodwin, etc., Civil Action No.
et al. 75-2165 Sec. G
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Doris A. Graham, etc. v. Johns-Manville Civil Action No.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Elizabeth J. Hallinan, etc. v. Combustion Civil Action No.
Engineering, Inc., et al. EV75-25-C
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Gordon C. Muylert, etc. v. Atlas Asbestos Civil Action No.
Corp. N76~1339
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
} Fannie Wilks, etc. v. Combusion Engineering, Civil Action No.
[J Inc., et al. 75-0023-H