IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Pago Pago, American Samoa, on January 30, 1974

Case MDL No. 176 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 7 :
* IAL PANEL	ON
* BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FARA Cr oonMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT ct 16 1374
PAGO PAGO, AMERICAN SAMOA, PATRICIADOCKERONO. 176
ON JANUARY 30, 1974 CLBRK OF THE PANEL
OPINION AND ORDER
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 January 30, 1974, a Pan American World Airways
commercial aircraft, manufactured by the Boeing Company,
crashed while on approach for landing at Pago Pago, American
Samoa. Twenty-eight actions arising out of the crash have
been filed in four different districts. Certain plaintiffs
move to have all actions stemming from the crash trans-
ferred to the Central District of California for coordi-
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407. All responding parties favor the transfer
of these actions to a single district for such pretrial
proceedings.
* Judges Murrah and Becker were unable to attend the
Panel hearing and, therefore, took no part in
the consideration or decision of this matter.
** Judge Weigel recused himself and took no part in
the consideration or decision of this matter.
/ / .

Case MDL No. 176 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 7
- ) 9
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer to the Central District
of California, pursuant to Section 1407, will best serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The sole dispute amongst the parties is which
forum is the most appropriate transferee district. All
of the plaintiffs favor the Central District of California.
They argue that the aircraft involved in this litigation
was certified by the Federal Aviation Administration,
Western Regional Branch, headquartered in the Los Angeles
area, and that many of the relevant documents, files,
‘records and witnesses dealing with the certification question
are located there.
The Boeing Company contends that all actions
should be transferred to the Western District of Washington,
where the relevant witnesses and documents relating to
plaintiffs' claims of alleged defective design and manufac-
ture of the aircraft are situated. As an alternative,
Pan American argues that all actions should be transferred
to the Northern District of California, where Pan American
performed servicing and maintenance on the aircraft and
trained its crevs.
It can fairly be said that any of these three
districts could be designated as the transferee forum for
this litigation without seriously inconveniencing any

Case MDL No. 176 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 7
. -3-
of the parties or their witnesses. But there are several
considerations influencing the efficient conduct of this
litigation that warrant transfer of all actions to the
Central District of California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§292(b), the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit has designated
Senior Judge Peirson M. Hall of the Central District
of California to sit as a district judge in both the North-
ern District of California and the Western District of
Washington and has assigned to him all actions in those
districts and in the Central District of California arising
out of this air crash for purposes of pretrial and trial
proceedings. If we were to transfer all actions in this
litigation to either the Northern District of California
or the Western District of Washington, Judge Hall would,
of course, receive the Section 1407 assignment. Y
Judge Hall, however, with the cooperation of all counsel,
has established a discovery schedule for all actions
now pending before him and is busily supervising the
litigation from his chambers in Los Angeles. Therefore,
while transfer of all actions to the Central District
of California would not unduly inconvenience any of the
parties or their witnesses, it would be most convenient
to Judge Hall because he will be able to conduct all of
his pretrial conferences in Los Angeles.
1/ A Section 1407 order, of course, only applies to
pretrial proceedings.

Case MDL No. 176 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 7
. } - 4 -
Moreover, all pleadings and other papers in connec-
tion with this litigation are presently sent to Judge Hall
in Los Angeles. A Section 1407 transfer of all actions to
any district other than the Central District of California
would require two separate files to be maintained, one in
Los Angeles for Judge Hall's convenience and another in the
transferee district, and would generally disrupt the orderly
system heretofore established by Judge Hall to supervise
the pretrial processing of this litigation.
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 under 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions listed
on Schedule A and pending in that district.
(or |

Case MDL No. 176 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 7
* SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 176 ‘
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFQRNIA
Pamela Frances Hoffman, et al. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-676-PMH
National Bank of Commerce, etc. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-677-PMH
Cathy Ann Giles, etc. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV~-74-424-PMH
Dick A. Smith v. Pan American World Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. CVv-74-606-PMH
Robert Peyton v. The Boeing Co. Civil Action
No. CV-74-830-PMH
Laurence B. Green, et al. v. Pan Civil Action
American Wirld Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV~74-957-PMH
Michael Joseph Havlick, et al. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, et al. No. CV-74-1125-PMH
Chong Wong, et ux. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, et al. No. CV-74-1220~PMH
Chief Tanuvasa Saifolio Amperosa, et al. Civil Action
v. Pan American World Airways, et al. No. CV-74-1221-PMH
Tuipala Sale, et ux. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. Cv-74-1222-PMH
Valelia Anu'‘u v. Pan American World Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1223~PMH
Chief Tiatia Tiololo, et al. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc., et al. - No. CV-74-1224-PMH
Saulo Setali v. Pan American World Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-~74-1225~PMH
Molly Allen v. Pan American World Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1226-PMH

Case MDL No. 176 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 7
. - 2 -
Chief Tagaloa Mikaleae Ahkam, et al. v. Civil Action
Pan American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1227-PMH
Roger Cann, etc. v. Pan American World Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1345-PMH
Janet P. Bonham, et al. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1346-PMH
Yvette Cotte, et al. v. The Boeing Co. Civil Action
No. CvV-74-1362-PMH
Robert H. Kinderman, Jr., et al. v. Civil Action
Pan American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1468-PMH
Selwyn N. Hetherington, etc. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1481-PMH
Hermann Muenster, et al. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1494-PMH
Anitele'a Matautia, et al. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. CV-74-1539-PMH
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Vuna Pahulu, et al. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc., et al. No. C74-555-SAW
Dean Arthur Phillips, et al. v. The Civil Action
Boeing Co. No. C74-1228-RHS
Richard V..Gaines II, et al. v. The Civil Action
Boeing Co. . No. C74-1227-RHS
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
National Bank of Commerce v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc., et al. No. C74-166S

Case MDL No. 176 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 7
ve 2 -3 =a
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Pamela Frances Hoffman, et al. v. Civil Action
Betty Petersen, et al. No. C-74-141
National Bank of Commerce, etc. v. Civil Action
Betty Petersen, et al. No. C-74-142
Zh(7