IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Tenerife, Canary Islands, on March 27, 1977

6 erm r Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 12 :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL. wolf CEE SEE
ON FoomnTT
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION RUB ig go -
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT TENERIFE, ) DOCKET NO. 306
CANARY ISLANDS ON MARCH 27, 1977 1) Sri at 0 .	SLLRA OF THE PINT ol
OPINION AND ORDER
314/77
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN ere
A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. Co CL
CAFFREY, AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM 3 oo
on March 27, 1977 a Boeing 747 jet aircraft being operated Co
by KILM-Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) collided with a Boeing 747 DL ie
jet aircraft being operated by Pan American World Airways (Pan oo
Am) on the runway at the Los Rodeos Airport in Tenerife, Canary
Islands. The KLM aircraft was carrying 248 passengers and
crew members and the Pan Am aircraft was carrying 396 passengers
and crew members at the time of the collision. Over 550 of
those persons were killed.
Presently, 40 actions arising from the collision are
before the Panel as a result of motions by various parties to : Co
transfer the actions in this litigation to a single district
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated or consolidated
1/
pretrial proceedings. Fifteen of these actions are pending
1/ All parties in this litigation anticipate a considerable
number of tag-along actions, some of which have already been
filed but came to the attention of the Panel too late to be So :
included in the Panel hearing on this matter. See Rules 1, :
9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 255, 259-60 (1975).

. . Case MDL No. 306 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	2 of 12
2/
in the Northern District of California; thirteen in the Central
) District of California; three in the Southern District of New
York; two each in the Northern District of Illinois and the
District of Alaska; and one each in the Eastern gyoertes of	: 3
California, the Southern District of California, the District
of Arizona, the Western District of Washington, and the District
~ of Puerto Rico. KLM is a defendant in all actions, Pan Am is a
defendant in all but one of the actions,	and Boeing is a defendant
in several of the actions. Additional defendants in some of the
actions include Rayal Cruise Lines, booking agent for the Pan Am
flight; the Government of Spain, operator of the airport at which
the collision occured; the insurance underwriter for the airport
authority: and the surviving pilot.and first officer of the
® ‘Pan Am aircraft. Plaintiffs in the actions generally allege
that negligent conduct of the defendants in operation, maintenance
or design of either of the two aircraft or the airport
caused persons aboard the aircraft to sustain injuries or
resulted	in the wrongful death of plaintiffs' decedents. Two
of the acticns, McClintock and Marshall, which are pending in
-_ i
2/ Two additional actions that were pending in the Northern
District of California have been dismissed since the Panel
hearing: Richard Bernasconi, et al. v. KLM-Royal Dutch
Airlines, et al., Civil Action No. C-77-0778-WHO; and Dennis
Querantes, et al. v. KLM-Royal Dutch Airlines, et al.,
Civil Action No. C-77-0779-WHO. :
3/ An additional action that is pending in the Southern
District of California, James F. Barth, et al. v. Pan American
world Airways, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 77-0345-GT, was
also included in the motions. On principles of comity, after
receiving a request from the judge to whom Barth is assigned,
® we are deferring our ruling concerning this action pending	that judge's decision on a matter he has under consideration.
See In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484, 496
(J.P.M.L. 1968).

. A Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 12
"the Northern District of California, have been brought as class
® actions on behalf of various victims of this collision or |
their estates. |
~All parties that have submitted briefs favor transfer of
the actions in this litigation to a single district pursuant to
Section 1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The only dispute among the parties is over the selection of an
appropriate transferee forum. Four different districts have
been suggested -- the Northern, Central and Southern Districts
of California and the Southern District of New York, Clearly,
these actions involve common questions of fact and we find
that their transfer under Section 1407 to the Southern
District of New York will best serve the convenience of the
C parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation. |
The parties that favor a California forum as the
transferee district generally contend that the center
of gravity of this litigation is located in California.
They assert that most of the passengers on the Pan Am
aircraft were residents of california	,or other west coast
states; that a majority of the survivors of the collision
are residents of california; that several actions arising from
this collision have been filed in California state courts and
many additional actions arising from this collision are
expected to be filed in state or federal courts located in
® california; and that all the major defendants in this litigation

. . Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 12
are located in or near, or do substantial business in,
| california. Thus, the parties that favor a california forum
maintain that a California forum will be convenient to the
greatest number of parties and witnesses and will best facilitate
coordination of discovery efforts between the actions pending in
california state courts and those pending in federal court.
Though any of the three california forums that have been
suggested, as well as the New York forum, could be described
as an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation, on
balance, we are persuaded that the Southern District of New
vork is the preferable forum.
The New York forum appears to have a greater nexus
. to the liability phase of the litigation than a California
eo forum. The surviving pilot and first officer of the Pan Am
aircraft reside in the New vork area and are key witnesses.
Also important are investigators of the collision from the
Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation
Safety Board, who apparently reside in either the New York
area or the Washington, D.C. area. In addition, Pan Am's
headquarters are located in New York and, as certain defendants
and plaintiffs represent, many of the relevant documents and
witnesses will be found in the New vork vicinity. We observe
that other centers of discovery in the liability phase will
pe the Netherlands, where KLM's headquarters are located;
Spain, which is conducting its own investigation of the collision;
® and of course the Canary Tslands, the situs of the crash.

P . Case MDL No. 306 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	5 of 12
: -5-
Related actions are pending in New York state courts
® as well as California state courts. Hence, our selection of |
either a New York or California federal forum would facilitate
the coordination of pretrial efforts between state and federal
courts regarding the actions arising from this disaster.
See In re Bomb Disaster at Roseville, California, 399 F. Supp.
1400, 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1975). |
One party requests that the Panel enter an order which
requires that: 1) Pan Am and KLM file a list of passengers and
next of kin; 2) the passengers and next of kin be notified of
these proceedings and 3) Pan Am and KLM file a list of settled
claims. The Panel is not empowered to enter such an order
under Section 1407, however. a request of this type should
® be presented to the federal district court in which one of the
constituent actions was originally filed or to the transferee
court following transfer under Section 1407.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407,
the actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in
districts other than the Southern District of New York be, and
the same hereby are, transferred to thé Southern District of
New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Robert J. Ward for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the actions already pending there and listed
on Schedule A.
®

: . Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 6 of 12
| SCHEDULE A
. DOCKET NO. 306
| J— OF ALASKA Civil Action No.
Wilma Lee Bowen, etc. v. Pan American World A77-107-Civ
Airways, Inc., et al.
William Blackmon, etc. v. Pan American World ~ A77-108-Civ
Airways, et al.
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Norma Jean Boen, et al. v. Pan American World Civ-77-394-PHX-WPC
Airways, Inc., et al.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mary Finley, etc. v. Pan American World Airways, CV-77-1201-F
Inc., et al.
Mary Finley, etc. v. Boeing Co., et al CV-77-1245-AAH
Frank L. Foley, Jr., et al. v. Pan. Cv-77-1263-WMB
American World Airways, et al.
Dan Harlow, et al. v. Pan American World CV-77-1475-RJK
@>irvays, Inc, et al.
Julie A. Levengood v. Pan American World CV-77-1476-WMB
Airways, Inc., et al.
June Perry, et al. v. Pan American World © CV-77-1478-R
Airways, Inc., et al.
Robert Hale v. Pan American World CV-77-1479-LTL
Airways, Inc., et al.
H. Clifton Kroon, etc. v. His Catholic Majesty, Cv-77-1511-AAH
the King of Spain, a sovereign nation, et al.
Burke Kaplan, etc. v. KLM-Royal Dutch Airlines, CvV-77-1719-LEW
et al.
Edward Hirshfield, etc. v. KLM—Royal Dutch Cv-77-1720-AAH
Airlines, et al.
Ann D. Kaessner, et al. v. Pan American cv-77-1391-MML
World Airways, et al.
Steven Alan Lewis, et al. v. Pan American World CvV-77-1588-RF
o Inc., et al.Dorothy D. Kelly, et al. v. KLM-Royal Cv-77-2310-RJK
Dutch Airlines, et al.

. . Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 7 of 12
Schedule A -- page 2 Docket No. 306
@ rorTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA civil Action No.
Harold E. & Roman McClintock, et al. C-77-0665-WHO
v. Pan American World Airways, et al.
Eugene J. Marshall, etc. v. Pan American C-77-0711-WHO
World Airways, Inc., et al.
Albert K. Emerzian, et al. v. Pan American C-77-0758-WHO
World Airways, et al.
Allen Calandra, et al. v. KLM-Royal Dutch Cc-77-0780-WHO
Airlines, et al. :
Betty Guerriero, et al. v. KLM-Royal Dutch C-77-0781-WHO
Airlines, et al.
Walter Michael H. Watt, etc. v. His Catholic C-77-0838-WHO
Majesty, et al.
Betty I. Rodriguez, etc. v. Pan American World C-77-086 3-WHO
Airways, Inc., et al.
Bethene M. Moore v. Pan American World C-77-0874-WHO
@ rims. et al.
Elfriede Naik, et al. v. KLM-Royal Dutch : C-77-0901-WHO
Airlines, et al.
C. Carl Nelson, Jr., et al. v. KLM-Royal C-77-0963-WHO
Dutch Airlines, et al.
Norman L. Shapro, etc. v. KLM-Royal Dutch © C-77-0938-WHO
Airlines, et al.
Laura Callahan, etc. v. The Government of the C-77-0981-WHO
Kingdom of Spain, et al. i
Donald Vogel, et al. v. The Government of the Cc-77-0982-WHO
Kingdom of Spain, et al.
Arthur R. Reed, et al. v. The Government of the C-77-0983-WHO
Kingdom of Spain, et al.
William Bodinson, et al. v. KLM-Royal Dutch C-77-0956-WHO .
Airlines, et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Action No.
Qs: B. Petersen, et al. v. Pan | 77-0205-GT
American World Airways, Inc., et al. ;

| “ . Case MDL No. 306 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	8 of 12
|
® Schedule A -- page 3 ‘Docket No. 306
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Action No.
Maurice Magante, et al. v. Pan American World §-77-252~-PCW
Airways, Inc., et al.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Marianne Jakoubek, et al. v. Pan American 77-C-1311
World Airways, Inc., et al. :
Charles H. Ziebel, et al. v. Pan American 77-Cc-1711
World Airways, Inc., et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
John C. Amador v. KLM-Royal Dutch 77-Civ-1795 )
Airlines, et al.
J. Edwin Harper, etc. v. KLM-Royal Dutch 77-Civ-1820
Airlines, et al.
James W. Flood, et al. v. KLM-Royal Dutch 77-Civ-2462
® Airlines, et al.
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO :
Adolfo Torrech Nieves, et al. v. KLM~-Royal 77-520
Dutch Airlines, et al.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Donald F. Dally, etc. v. KLM-Royal Dutch C-77-2758
Airlines, et al.
i

Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 9 of 12
fi Ay Pan: ’ g te
: DOCKET NO. 306 Ra Eiiory RS AEE
SEI nN :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION : .
SE 277 .
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT TENERIFE, CANARY ISLANDS ON MARCH 27, 1977 . FE
t 3 Thin A R , N .
CLERK gy J. TC ve
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION THE pis, 0) 7 77	aL gr
hn
. It appearing that several parties in the above-captioned
litigation have either moved or joined in motions for £hs Panel	to reconsider its opinion and order of August 16, 1977, and . Le
to transfer or remand all actions in this litigation pursuant - Co
to 28 U.S.C, §1407 to a federal district court located in the
State of California, and, oo
The Panel having fully considered these matters on the basis	of the papers submitted,
IT IS ORDERED that these motions for reconsideration be,
and the same hereby are, DENIED. Le .
FOR THE PANEL: A. .
=) 0 Wy (net .	| Fm TALL WSS |
John Minor Wisdom :
Chairman
1/ On August 16, 1977 the Panel issued orders conditionally
transferring several tag-along actions to the Southern District of :
New York for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pre- .
trial proceedings in this litigation. Plaintiffs in some of
those actions have moved to vacate the conditional transfer co
orders and have also joined in the motions for reconsideration
now before the Panel.
2/ The Panel has deemed these matters submitted on the basis
of the papers filed. See Rule 13(b), k.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D.
253, 263 (1975). : :

- ’ Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Fag! 12UBICIAL PANEL DH CL
TUE ci avs: LAT SE
TUENLED bo
i
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL HOY 36 1975 ; oo
ON RA / . CoMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PATRICIA D. HOY ARE 7
ELERIOF THz FaiEL Rat
In re Air Crash Disaster at Tenerife, )
Canary Islands on March 27, 1977 )) Docket No. 306
Edgar Jack Ridout, et al. v. Pan American World )
Airways, Inc., et al., 5.D.New YOrk, )
C.A. No. 78 Civ 2198 ) : Le
OPINION AND ORDER | oo
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, |
EDWIN A. ROBSON, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY, AND
ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.
PER CURIAM ET .
The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, previously -
centralized several actions in this litigation in the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial :
proceedings before the Honorable Robert J. Ward. In re '
Air Crash Disaster at Tenerife, Canary Islands on March so
27, 1977, 435 F.Supp. 927 (J.P.M.L. 1977). These actions
arose from a March 27, 1977 collision on the runway at the
Los Rodeos Airport in Tenerife, Canary Islands between a
Boeing 747 jet aircraft being operated by KLM-Royal Dutch E SE
Airlines (KLM) and a Boeing 747 jet aircraft being operated }
by Pan American World Airways (Pan Am). i
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action (Ridout) are
a passenger who survived the crash and a corporation of
which he was chairman of the board of directors at the time
of the accident. KLM and Pan Am are the defendants. All

: Case MDL No. 306 Dogument 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 11 of 12° :
parties in Ridout have entered into a stipulation pursuant :
to which defendants have agreed that they will not contest : IE
: | their liability to plaintiffs for compensatory damages.
Plaintiffs in Ridout move the Panel, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1407(a), to remand this action to the Central District |
of California, the district from which Ridout was transferred a
by the Panel. Defendants Pan Am and KLM oppose remand. oo
- We find that remand at this time of Ridout to the Central a
District of California will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient |
conduct of Ridout. Accordingly, we order remand of Ridout. N Ee
Plaintiffs in Ridout stress that, as a result of the
stipulation entered into by the parties, the only issue
that remains in Ridout is a determination of the amount | :
of compensatory damages to be awarded, and Ridout should
be returned to its transferor forum for further discovery oo Co
and, if necessary, trial on this issue.
The opponents of remand assert that, although the stipula-
tion entered into in Ridout has removed the issue of liability : oo
from Ridout, and although Ridout no longer involves any FL
common discovery interests with other MDL-306 actions, Ridout )
should nevertheless remain in the transferee district for
further efforts toward settlement, to permit the transferee
judge to consider choice of law questions, and to allow |
entry of a final pretrial order by the transferee judge. RE
Opponents maintain that the continued pendency of Ridout

~ . Case MDL No. 306 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 12 of 12
in the transferea district for further pretrial proceedings
C need not nincer damages discovery from cccurring locallwy
in California.
We find the arguments in opposition to remand unpersuasive.
As is generally true in multidistrict air disaster litigation,
the common questions of fact in the present litigation primarily
concern the issue of liability, whereas the issue of damages
is unique with respect to each person who was aboard the
aircraft. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Pago Pago, American
Samoa con January 30, 1974, 394 F.Supp. 799, 300 (J.P.M.L.
19733. all parties recognize that as a result cof the stipulation
sntered inte bv the parties, the remaining discovery in
Ridout concerns the issue of damages, and all other remaining
o pretrial proceedings in Ridout are primarily, if not entirely,
unique to Ridout. Therefore, on the basis of the record
before us, plaintiffs have persuaded us that retention cf
Ridout in the transferee district is no longer necessary.
See In re Air Crash Disaster at Tenerife, Canary Islands
on March 27, 1977, M.D.L. Ne. 30¢ (J.P.:.L. Aug. 11, 1973)
(order vacating conditional transfer order) (transfer denied
with respect to an action in which there was nc dispute on
the issue of liability and only the issue of damages remained):
-n re Alyx Crash Disaster at Pago Page, American Samcz on
Januarv 30, 1974, sucra, 394 F.Supp. at 300.
IT IS THEREFCORI ORDERED that the action entitled Edzar
¢ Jack Rideout, =2t al. +. Pan 2merican Yeorld Airwavs, Inc.,
couc, =C rwavs, ;
eZ al., S.D. New York, C.A. Nc. 73 Civ 2198, be, and the
same nerebdbv 1s, RIMANDED to the Central District cf California.