IN RE: Asbestos School Products Liability Litigation

. ) Case MDL No. 624 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 3
to © Snob PARED I
. WILT ETRICT LETScit §
RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION FLED
0 DOCKET NO. 624 APR 10 1985
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION gr dx 67 TES PANEL
IN RE ASBESTOS SCHOOL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION =
BEFORE. ANDREW A. CAFFREY, CHAIRMAN, ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, FRED DAUGHERTY,
SAM CCPOINTER, JR.,* S. HUGH DILLIN, MILTON POLLACK,* AND LOUIS H. POLLAK,
JUDGES OF THE PANEL
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
PER CURIAM
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407,
filed by three defendants in actions in this docket, to centralize in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvanis for coordinated or consolidated pretrialproceedings the twenty actions=~" listed on the following Schedule A.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find that
Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Al-
though we recognize that the actions in this litigation involve some common
questions of fact, we are not persuaded that these common questions of fact
will predominate over individual questions of fact present in each action.
‘Moreover, we note that the cormon questions of fact involved in these actions
nave been extensively litigated for the past ten years in connection with
ry -chousands of personal injury actions arising from alleged asbestos exposure.
or We further note that 1) one action included in the Section 1407 motion has
already been tried, and several other actions have been scheduled for trial
within the next six months; and 2) the great majority of parties responding
to the Section 1407 motion opposes centralization. The Panel concludes that
centralization of these actions is inappropriate for many of the reasons
expressed by the Panel in its previous rulings denying transfer of asbestos-
related actions. See In re Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation Material
Products Liability Litigation, 431 F.Supp. 906 (J.P.M.L. 1977); In re
Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. II), MDL-416 (J.P.M.L., March 13,
1980) (unpublished order).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1407, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
¥ Judge Milton Pollack recused himself and took no part in the decision of
this matter. In addition, Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in the
decision of this matter. .
yy The Section 1407 motion included one additional action -- County ofAnderson, etc. v. United States Gypsum Co., et al., E.D. Tennessee, C.A. No.-
CIV-3-83-511 —-- that was tried in March, 1985, resulting in a jury verdict
C for defendants and a subsequent order dismissing the action. Accordingly,	the question of transfer of this action under Section 1407 is moot.

Lo . Case MDL No. 624 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 3
to SCHEDULE A
® MDL-624 —— In re Asbestos School Products Liability Litigation
Northern District of Alabama -
£Lranklin County School Board, et al. v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec,
=. td., et al., C.A. Oe Cv ~HM-5 SNW
= District of Colorado
Adams-Arapahoe School District 28-J v. Celotex Corp., et al., C.A.
Southern Distriet of Florida
Greater Miami Hebrew Academy v. United States Gypsum Co., C.A. No.
B4-0202-CIV-EPS
Western District of Kentucky
McCracken County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.,
C.A. No. CB3-0317P(J)
Southern District of Mississippi
EN Board of Trustees, Gulfport Municipal Separate School District v.
National Gypsum Co., C.A. No. 5-83-0015
= District of New Hampshire
City of Manchester v. National Gypsum Co., et al., C.A. No.
B= 1I3
Tovm of Hooksett School District v. W.R. Grace and Co., C.A. No.
C-83-761i-L
District of South Carolina :
Spartanburg County School District Seven v. National Gypsum Co.,et al., C.A. No. 83-1740-]
Eastern District of Tennessee -
The ty of Greenville, Tennessee v. National Gypsum Co., et al.,	C.A. No. 2-83-29
Sherry Wolfe, et al. v. United States Gypsum Co., et al., C.A. No.
County of Johnson, Tennessee, etc. v. United States Gypsum Co., et
al., C.A. No. 2- -

To «co Case MDL No. 624 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of3
Middle District of Tennessee ’
Clarksville-Montgomery County Board of Education v. United States C	Gypsum Co., et al., C.A. No. 3-84-0315
Rutherford County Board of Education v. W.R. Grace and Co., CA.	No. 3- 3-05 2
- Western District of Tennessee IB
. = Shelby rounty, Termessee, et al. v. W.R. Grace and Co., et al.,	= C.A. Oe. - ele
Eastern District of Texas
Dayton Independent School District v. United States Gypsum Co., et
al., C.A. No. B- 1-277
Evadale Independent School District v. United States Gypsum Co.,et al., C.A. No. B- 1-293
Western District of Virginia
County School Board of Amelia County Virginia, et al. v. United
States Gypsum Co., et al., C.A. No. 84-0022C
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Barnwell School District No. 45 v. United States Gypsum Co., et
i al., C.A. No. 33-1395
: Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools. et al. v. United C	N States Gypsum Co., et al., C.A. No. 84-2312
= School District of Lancaster, et al. v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec
Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 83-0268