IN RE: Helicopter Crash Near Marsh Island, Louisiana, on December 8, 1977

" - Case MDL No. 353 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 5
Lt INE SN : DURE. i.
. \ Li —T | col
MULT 2 bo
CL 3EF0RE THEI JUDICIAL PAdZiL 0 Lo. 4S :
0x DEC | |
AULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Le un ARD 2p)PATERGF yrIJ RE HELICOPTER CRASH JEAR MARSH ) COCKE NO. 353 =
ISLAND, LOUISIAJA, ON DECEI3ZR 3, )
1877 )
OPINION AND ORDER
3EFORE JOHN INOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AMD IDWARD JZINFELD, :
SDWIN A. R03S04, STANLZY A. WEIGEL, AJDREW A. CAFFREY,
AdD ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PAJZL.
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of eleven actions pendinz
in tipee districts: nine in the Jestern District of oo :
Louisiana and one each in the Zastern District of Louisiana Co RE
and the Zastern District of Texas. Cn
The actions arose from a heliconter crash on an
oil production platform near :larsh Island, Louisiana, So
in the Gulf of Mexico on December 3, 1977. Seventeen
persons were killed and two persons werz injured in the
accident. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. (Pil), the owner
of the helicopter that crashed, is named as a defendant
in all eleven actions. Mission Vikinz, Inc. (iission),
the operator of the platform on which the crash occurred, :
/
is a defendant in all actions except the Texas action.’
Aerospatiale delicopter Corporation (Aerospatiale), the
17 In five of these actions, iission is sued sub. non
«ilssion Drilling and Exploration Co.

Case MDL No. 353 ,Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of5 -
manufacturer of the helicopter, is a defendant in seven SE
: | of the Western District of Louisiana actions. American CL
: ' Home Assurance Company (American), PHI's and Mission's
insurance company, is a defendant in five of the Western
District of Louisiana actions. PHI is accused of negligence
in the piloting of the helicopter; Mission is accused ;
of negligence in positioning a crane in close proximity oo
to the landing area on the oil production platform; and
Aerospatiale is accused of negligence in the design,
manufacture and testing of the helicopter. Other theories
of recovery against these three defendants include breach Co
of warranties, strict liability, and res ipsa loquitor. EE 5
PAI moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407,
to transfer the actions pending in districts other than
the Western District of Louisiana to that district for Co
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with oo
the actions pending there.2/ Mission, American and plain-
tiffs in eight of the Western District of Louisiana actions
support PHI's motion. The plaintiff in the Texas action
opposes transfer of her action.
2] PHI moved on September 15, 1978 to include in those
proceedings three additional actions pending in the Western
District of Louisiana. This motion was filed too late
for these three actions to be considered with the other
actions in this litigation at the Panel hearing held
on this matter on September 29, 1978, because the other
parties did not have adequate time to respond. See Rule
7(b), R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 566 (1978). Accordingly,
these three actions were treated as potential tag-along
actions. See Rule 10(d), id. at 568. Because of the
Panel's disposition herein, these three actions are already
pending before the transferee court, and thus no further
action regarding these actions is necessary by the Panel.
See Rule 10(a), id.

. . Case MDL No. 353 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 5
-3-
) We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer to the Western District
of Louisiana under Section 1407 will best serve the con-
venience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
No party denies the existence of common questions
of fact among these actions concerning the cause or causes
of the accident and the liability of the various defendants.
Transfer is thus necessary in order to prevent duplicative
discovery, eliminate the possiblity of conflicting pretrial
‘rulings,	and conserve the time and efforts of the parties Cl
and the judiciary. See In re Helicopter Crash in Germany
@- September 26, 1975, 443 F. Supp. 447, 449 (J.P.M.L.1978).
The Texas plaintiff argues that pretrial proceedings
in the Texas action are sufficiently advanced to warrant
exclusion of the action from transfer under Section 1407.
During oral argument before the Panel, however, PHI,
the defendant in the Texas action, stated that discovery
is still in progress in the Texas action and that a trial
date has not yet been set. The Texas plaintiff did not
refute these statements. Under these circumstances,
exclusion of the Texas action from transfer under Section
1407 is not warranted. Cf. In re The Upjohn Company
Antibiotic '"Cleocin' Products Liability Litigation, 450 F.Supp.
®

Case MDL No. 353 Docurpent 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 5 :
© 1168, 1170 (J.P.M.L. 1978) (actions in which discovery
concluded and trial scheduled excluded from transfer C
under Section 1407). We note that if and when an action
or claim is in fact ready for trial, or otherwise ready
for remand because the transferee judge finds that the
centralized proceedings pertaining to that action or
claim are completed, the transferee judge may suggest
that the Panel remand the action or claim to its transferor
district. See 28 U.S.C. §1407(a); Rule 11, R.P.J.P.M.L.,
78 F.R.D. 561, 569-71 (19738).
We agree that the Western District of Louisiana
is the appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. a
Many witnesses and relevant documents will be found in oo
that district at the business offices of PHI in Lafayette, CLouisiana, and also elsewhere in the district because
of its proximity to the accident. Furthermore, the vast
majority of the actions before us are already pending
in that district. See In re Air Crash Disaster in the
Ionian Sea on September 8, 1974, 407 F. Supp. 238, 240
(J.P.M.L. 1976).
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 Western District
of Louisiana be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the Western District of Louisiana and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable W. Eugene Davis
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings C
with the actions listed on Schedule A and pending there.

* y Case MDL No. 353 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE A
} DOCKET NO. 353 CIVIL ACTION NO.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Karen H. Huval, et al. v. Petroleum 78-0519
Helicopters, Inc., et al.
Teresa H. Leathem, et al. v. Petroleum 78-0603
Helicopter, Inc., et al.
Madeline R. Dohmann, et al. v. Petroleum ~ 78-0501
Helicopters, Inc., et al.
Teresa B. Smith, et al. v. Petroleum 78-0537
Helicopters, Inc., et al.
Michael A. Peschier v. Petroleum CI78-0699
‘Helicopters, Inc., et al. = Co Sn cee SE TI
Arthurine Witherwax v. Petroleum CI78-0689
® Helicopters, Inc., et al.Hussey Huval, etc. v. Petroleum C178-0520
Helicopters, Inc., et al.
Bonnie Stebbins Thibodeaux, etc., et al. C178-0635
v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. et al.
Janelle O. Gonzales v. Petroleum Heli- CI78-0786
copters, Inc., et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Lillie J. Anderson, et al. v. Petroleum 78-1413-H (G)
Helicopters, Inc., et al.
RASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Wilma J. Anderson, et al. v. Petroleum M-78-2CA
Helicopters, Inc., et al.