IN RE: Air Crash at Schenley Golf Course, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on August 21, 1977

Case MDL No. 390 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 10
: hat 5 ! oo
Filer Aen |
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL HOV IG jars YZid : 5
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PATE Dic a
IN RE AIR CRASH AT SCHENLEY GOLF COURSE, ) DOCKET HHL 390
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, ON AUGUST 21, 1977 )
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE MURRAY I. GURFEIN, CHAIRMAN, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY,* .
ROY W. HARPER, CHARLES R. WEINER, EDWARD S. NORTHROP, AND
ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.
PER CURIAM |
| I. BACKGROUND
This litigation consists of six actions pending in
four districts: three actions in the Western District |
of Pennsylvania, and one action each in the District of So
Delaware, the Northern District of Indiana, and the District |
of Utah.
On August 21, 1977, a Beechcraft Bonanza airplane -
crashed on Schenley Park Golf Course in Pittsburgh, :
Pennsylvania. Glen Shaw (Shaw), the pilot of the aircraft; -
Richard J. Heckel (Heckel) and Heckel's wife were the only
people aboard the airplane at the time of the crash, and
Heckel's wife was the only fatality. Ln
In August, 1978, Heckel initiated a wrongful death
and survival action in the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Heckel). Named as defendants in Heckel were Beech Aircraft
Corporation (Beech), manufacturer of the aircraft that
* Judge Caffrey took no part in the decision of this
matter.
FPI-MAR——3.27.78.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 390 _Dgcument 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 20f10
1 crashed; Poorman Aircraft Service (Poorman), an Ohio business
b) alleged to have inspected and repaired the aircraft's engine . |
3 "approximately one year prior to the accident"; Nichels
4 Engineering Co. Inc. (Nichels) and G. N. Aircraft, Inc.
(G.N.), both Indiana businesses alleged to have inspected
> and repaired the aircraft's engine "approximately one year
© prior to the accident"; Thompson Flying Service, Inc.
7 (Thompson), a Utah business alleged to have repaired, rebuilt
8 and sold the engine on the aircraft "at some time prior
9 to the accident”; Leon Lamp and Lamp Aircraft Service (the
0 Lamp defendants), Ohio residents alleged to have repaired,
1 rebuilt, inspected and installed the engine on the aircraft oo
"at some time prior to the accident"; and M. J. Corbi Aircraft
? Sales, Inc. (Corbi), an Ohio business alleged to have sold
3 the aircraft to its owner at the time of the crash. Separate Co
4 wrongful death and survival counts for negligence, strict .
5 liability and breach of warranty were alleged against each oo
6 defendant.
7 On October 13, 1978, Shaw filed the second Pennsylvania
3 action (Shaw) against the same defendants originally named 3
9 in Heckel. Plaintiff sought to recover damages based upon |
theories of liability substantially similiar	to those in
’ Heckel.
t In February, 1979, Nichels, G. N. and Thompson were
2 dismissed from both Shaw and Heckel for lack of personal
3 jurisdiction. | |
1 The third Pennsylvania action was originally brought
5 | in August, 1978, in the Northern District of Ohio by Heckel |
| FPI-MAR—3.27.79.5M.1781

Lt Case MDL No. 390 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	3 of 10
1 against Poorman, the Lamp defendants and Corbi. In November,
C2 1978, this action was transferred to the Western District
- 3 of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). The allega-
4 tions against the defendants in this action are identical
to those raised against them in Heckel.
> The remaining three actions were also brought by Heckel
6 in August, 1978. Beech is the sole defendant in the Delaware
7 action, Thompson is the sole defendant in the Utah action,
8 and Nichels and G.N. are the defendants in the Indiana
9 action. Again, the allegations against each defendant
10 are identical to those originally raised against each defendant
in Heckel.
11 -
Heckel moves the Panel to centralize, pursuant to
12 28 U.S.C. §1407, all actions in this docket in the Western
Cj District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
14 pretrial proceedings. Shaw joins in this motion. Beech,
15 G. N. and Thompson oppose transfer.
16 We find that these actions involve common questions
17 of fact and that, with the exception of the Utah action,
18 transfer of the non-Pennsylvania actions to the Western
19 District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 with the actions
20 pending there will serve the convenience of the parties
21 and witnesses and promote the just and efficent conduct
22 of the litigation.
23 Opponents argue that centralization of the actions
4 should be denied because they involve no substantial common
® questions of fact. Opponents contend that each defendant
FPI—MAR—3.27.79.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 390 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	4 of 10 ET
1 is alleged to have acted or failed to act in different
2 ways and at different times over a period of fifteen years,
3 that none of the actions raises an allegation that any
4 of the defendants were acting in concert, and that the
proof of liability of each defendant will thus turn upon
> a unique set of circumstances. Any common questions that
6 may be found to exist, opponents urge, are not sufficiently
7 complex to justify transfer. Opponents further contend
8 that because this litigation involves only two plaintiffs,
9 with actions pending in only four districts, cooperation
10 among involved parties, counsel and courts will avoid any
11 duplicative discovery and is a preferable alternative to
centralization.
12
Finally, opponents stress that the three defendants
13 in the non-Pennsylvania actions were previously dismissed
14 from two of the Pennsylvania actions for lack of in personam
15 jurisdiction. Opponents contend that movant is thus attempting
16 to misuse Section 1407 by vesting jurisdiction over all
17 defendants in the district court for the Western District
18 of Pennsylvania where jurisdiction would otherwise not
be available.
19
We find these arguments unpersuasive. The Indiana,
20 Pennsylvania and Delaware actions arise from the same accident
21 and factual questions concerning the cause or causes of
22 the accident will be common to each action. The presence
23 of different legal theories in some of these actions with
24 regard to the alleged liability of each defendant does ®55 not negate the existence of common questions of fact regarding
!
FPI~MAR——3.27.73.6M-1781

CL Case MDL No. 390 Documeng 2- Filed 05/19/15 Page 5 of 10
1 the cause or causes of the crash and the attendant circum-
CZ stances. See In re Air Crash Disaster in the Ionian Sea- 3 on September 8, 1974, 438 F. Supp. 932, 934 (J.P.M.L. 1977).
" Because the factual questions in each of these actions
focus on what caused the accident, it is likely that all
> defendants will be involved with discovery in each action
6 either as parties or non-parties. Transfer under Section
7 1407 is thus necessary in order to avoid duplicative discovery,
8 prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve judicial
9 resources. While voluntary coordination of discovery efforts
10 among parties and their counsel is always commendable,
11 transfer of these actions to a single district under Section
1407 will ensure the streamlining of discovery and all
12 other pretrial proceedings as well. See In re Gas Meter
C Antitrust Litigation, 464 F. Supp. 391, 393 (J.P.M.L. 1979).14 The transferee judge, of course, has the authority to schedule
15 any pretrial proceedings that are unique to particular
16 parties, claims or actions to proceed concurrently with
17 the common pretrial proceedings, thereby permitting the
18 litigation to proceed expeditiously in all areas. See
19 In re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 464
F. Supp. 969, 974 (J.P.M.L. 1979). Moreover, the transferee
20 judge has power to provide that no party need participate
21 in pretrial proceedings unrelated to that party's interests.
22 See, e.g., Parts I & II, §§2.31, Manual for Complex Litigation
23 (rev. ed. 1977).
4 Opponents' argument that plaintiffs' motion for transfer
é under Section 1407 constitutes an abuse of the statute
| FPI~-MAR==3.27.79.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 390 Document 2, Filed 05/19/15 Page 6 of 10 Lo,
1 is without merit. In essence, opponents' argument is that
2 plaintiffs should not be able to secure from the Panel,
3 under 28 U.S.C. §1407, what the venue provisions of federal
4 law otherwise prohibit. The Panel's discretion under Section
1407 is not limited by venue considerations, however, and
> the fact that defendants may not all be amenable to suit
© in the same jurisdiction	does not prevent transfer to
7 a single district for pretrial proceedings where the pre-
8 requisites of Section 1407 are otherwise satisfied. See
9 In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Litigation, 337 F. Supp. 1337,
10 1339 (J.P.M.L. 1972).
11 On the basis of the record before us, we are not persuaded
that the Utah action should be included in centralized
12 proceedings under Section 1407. The nexus between the
13 Utah action and the other actions in this litigation appears
14 to be too tenuous. Thompson has represented, and movants
15 have not disputed before us, that it is a small fixed-base
16 operation with its only place of business in Salt Lake
17 City, Utah; that ten years ago, Thompson overhauled an
18 aircraft engine in Salt Lake City for a California owner
19 and had no further involvement with that engine; that this
engine was later installed in the Beech aircraft; and that
20 over 800 flying hours later, and after at least one subsequent
21 major overhaul and numerous periodic inspections, the aircraft
22 crashed in Pennsylvania in 1977. Discovery in the Utah
23 action will thus likely involve not only questions concerning
24 the cause or causes of the crash, but equally important, also
25 | questions concerning possibly superseding events occurring over
| 2 ten-year period that have little in common with the other |	|
FPI-MAR—3.27.79-64.1781

LC Case MDL No. 390 DocumentZ Filed 05/19/15 Page	7 of 10
1 actions in this litigation. Furthermore, Thompson urges
¢ that its repair facilities, business records, witnesses3 and potential expert witnesses are all located in the Salt
4 Lake City area. In light of these circumstances, we cannot
5 conclude that any benefits that would be derived from inclusion
of the Utah action in centralized pretrial proceedings
° in the Western District of Pennsylvania would outweigh
7 the inconvenience transfer would cause the defendant in
8 the Utah action.
9 The Western District of Pennsylvania is clearly the
10 most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation.
11 The accident occurred there; the Honorable William W. Knox,
12 to whom the actions already pending in that district are
assigned, is the judge most familiar with the litigation;
CJ || half of the actions in this docket are presently pending
14 there; and most of the parties are already before the Pennsyl-
15 vania court. See In re Air Crash Disaster near Upperville,
16 Virginia, on December 1, 1974, 393 F. Supp. 1089, 1090
17 (J.P.M.L. 1975).
18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that transfer pursuant to
19 28 U.S.C. §1407 of the action entitled Richard J. Heckel,
etc. v. Thompson Flying Service, Inc., D. Utah, C.A. No.
2 C-78-0308, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
22 §1407, the remaining actions listed on the following Schedule
23 A and pending in districts other than the Western District
4 of Pennsylvania be, and the same hereby are, transferred
é | to the Western District of Pennsylvania and, with the consentFPI—MAR—3.27.79.64.1781

Case MDL No. 390 Document 2_ Filed 05/19/15 Page 8 of 10 CLE
1 of that court, assigned to the Honorable William W. Knox |
2 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with g
3 the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule
4 A.
5
6
i |
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
!
a FPI—MAR—=3.27.79-6M.1781

Lt. Case MDL No. 390 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	9 of 10
1 DOCKET NO. 390
@ - SCHEDULE A
3 DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
4 Richard J. Heckel, etc. v. Beech Aircraft © Civil Action No.
Corp. 78-357
> WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
6 Richard J. Heckel, etc. v. Beech Aircraft Civil Action No.
. Corp., et al. 78-891-B
Richard J. Heckel, etc. v. Poorman Civil Action No.
8 Aircraft Svc., et al. 78-2388
9 Glenn W. Shaw v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Civil Action No.et al. 78-1178-B
10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
11 Richard J. Heckel, etc. v. Nichels Civil Action No.
Engineering Co., Inc., et al. 78=357
12 DISTRICT OF UTAH
@ Richard J. Heckel, etc. v. Thompson Civil Action No.14 Flying Service, Inc. Cc-78-0308
15
16 :
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
eo |

Case MDL No. 390 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 10 of 10
SISAL hoERR ;	SHLRTRICT HDs	A
DOCKET NO. 390 ) nl
So 17 Wh) 3	BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION oo 4
BATRIAA NM. fay JN
IN RE AIR CRASH AT SCHENLEY GOLF COURSE, PITTSBURGH, PENNS VIVANTE, me
ON AUGUST 21, 1977
ORDER REASSIGNING LITIGATION
Inasmuch as the actions in the above litigation have been
reassigned from the Honorable William W. Knox to the Honorable
Barron P. McCune in accordance with the Local Rules for the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned litigation
be, and the same hereby is, reassigned to the Honorable Barron P. :
McCune for the remainder of the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. ’ oe
FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman : :