IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Paris, France, on March 3, 1974

ven : Wo
Case MDL No. 172 Document 2 Ffled 05/01/15 Page 1 of 5 :
a. . ULTIE Cr R AE ONaE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL rp TBAT
ON BEE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION JUN -5 1a7 |
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT PARIS, ) PATE	pt [hast oan
FRANCE, ON MARCH 3, 1974 ) ROEKETING. E72 |fiOPINION AND ORDER b| rd
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH *, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER *,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III *, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL ’
' PER CURIAM
On March 3, 1974, a DC-10 jet aircraft, manufactured
by McDonnell Douglas Corporation and operated by Turkish Airlines,
crashed shortly after take-off from Orly Airport in Paris, France.
©All passengers and crew members aboard the aircraft perished in
the crash. At the present time, eleven actions arising from the
crash have been filed: nine in the Central District of California
. , . 1/ So
and one each in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. —
Plaintiff in one of the California actions moves the
Panel for an order transferring all actions to the Central District
of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. All responding parties recognize
the need for transfer of this litigation under Section 1407, but
they disagree on which district is the appropriate transferee forum.
Clearly, these actions involve common questions of fact and
* Although Judges Murrah, Becker and Lord were not present
at the hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties,
participated in this decision.
1/A1l1 parties in this litigation anticipate several tag-along
actions. See Rule 1, Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, 53 F.R.D. 119, 120 (1971), :
as amended 55 F.R.D. LI (1972).

: * Case MDL No. 172 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 5
Q> Pa
we find that their transfer under Section 1407 to the Central
District of California will best serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.
Because the crash occurred in France, some parties urge
an East Coast location as the site of the transferee district
for this litigation. The mere proximity of the East Coast to
the situs of the crash, however, is not in and of itself a per-
suasive reason to support transfer of all actions to an East Coast
forum. Indeed, an examination of the complaints in these actions
reveals that the majority of the discovery in this litigation
® focus on the design and manufacture of the aircraft. Inasmuch
as the documents and witnesses relevant to these matters are loca-
ted at McDonnell Douglas' production facilities in Long Beach,
California, we find that the most appropriate transferee forum
for this litigation is the Central District of California.
- Certain plaintiffs request the Panel to clarify whether
discovery proceedings should be stayed by the proposed transferor
courts pending the Panel's determination under 28 U.S.C. §1407.
We believe this matter is within the sole discretion of the trans-
feror judges. We have previously noted that the mere pendency of
a motion before the Panel does not affect or suspend orders and discov-
ery proceedings in the transferor district court and does not in any
way limit the jurisdiction of the transferor court to rule upon matters
| properly presented to it for decision. In re Four Seasons Secur-	ities Laws Litigation, 362 F. Supp. 574, 575 n.2 (J.P.M.L. 1973).

: - Case MDL No. 172 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 5
@ “3-
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on
the attached Schedule A pending in districts other than the
Central District of California be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Central District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Peirson M.
Hall for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions listed on Schedule A which
are already pending in that district.
$

: i Case MDL No. 172 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 5
Q soomour	a DOCKET	No. 172
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Doris Leah Kalinsky, etc. v. Civil Action .
McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. 74 Civ. 441
SQUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Flanagan, Wilcox and Neill v. Civil Action
McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. 74 Civ 1415
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Edith Mary Hope, etc. v. McDonnell Civil Action
Douglas Corp. No. CV-74-698-PMIi
Flanagan, Wilcox and Neill v. Civil Action
McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. CV-74-808-DPMIi
Incid Pekerol Marto v. McDonnell Civil Action
Douglas Corp. No. CV 74-3084-PH
June Gottlieb Safran, etc. v. Civil Action
® McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. CV-74-962-PiOdette Durant Pauly, etc. v. Civil Action
‘McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. CV-74-1034-ur
Kamran Cagatay, etc. v. Civil Action
McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. DV-74~1114-HD
Gary Sidney Ryan, etc. v. Civil Action
McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. CV-74-1115-HD
Reginald William Gillman, etc. Civil Action
Vv. McDonnell Douglas Corp. No, CV-74-1116-1P
Sylvia Conway, etc. v. Civil Action
McDonnell Douglas Corp. No. CV-74-1113-Pl

} Case MDL No. 172 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5
woes AAELO t
: con ETRE	RS oo
MELE eT {
DOCKET NO. 172-g 1876 ki Toed vo Ag .
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION: A
CLEAR	UF TdT nits j
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT PARIS, FRANCE, ON MARCH 3, 1974
ORDER ASSIGNING TRANSFEREE JUDGE
At the request of Judge Peirson M. Hall, the transferee
judge in this litigation, and with the consent of the transferee
court, .it is hereby ordered that this litigation is assigned to
Judge Manuel IL. Real in the Central District of California along
with the previously-assigned Judge Peirson M. Hall. Each trans-
feree judge shall have total jurisdiction over the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
in this litigation and each judge may act individually and/or
jointly with respect to those proceedings.
FOR THE PANEL:
0 w- EN :C0 gem HY iste. a Ln
John Minor Wisdom
Chairman