IN RE: Drowning Incident at Quality Inn Northeast, Washington, DC, on May 3, 1974

Case MDL No. 222 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page lof 3. - Co
Co To 405 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT : } Co	Fans : : :
i ks i N :
oC A tions in che District of Minnesota. in- the consent®pf thal cout, assyrned wo tae
® {cad, they recommend that the Panel Honorable Miles VW. Lord for coordinated .	sqgregate the foreign governfnent ac- or consolidateNpabteial proceedings with
tioRs from the actions brought py domes- the actions previ¥fusly transferred to that
tic Maintiffs and transfer theflormer to. - Gistrict. :
the Fistrict of the District oF Columbia ce? . :
for pketrial | processing withf Colombia © :
; and Xdgez. In support of thi proposal, - fin pn
; celendangs point to the burdeh on Judge QE; ) Lord in supervising the domgstic aspect . Co
of this litigation and maintgin that the oo CT
foreign government actions grise enough ‘ :
distinct issudy to warrant segarate treat- Ja re DROWNING INCIDENT A :
ment. ) .. QULLITY INN NCRTITAST,
While we cpriainly recoggize the tre- WASHINGTON, BD. C, ON MAY 3
| -mendous burden that this ¥nassive and 1574. :
. compiex litigdion places fupon Judge | Dodie: Mo. £32.
: Lord, we remain convincedfthat the for- Cres an . rien :
eign governmefl actions, fnciuding Co- ~~. wudicial Panel on Multidistrict
lombia and Korba, belong Joefore him in - . Latigation. oo
| the District of Ymnesoig for pretrial Jan. 22, 1976.| proceedings. Judge Lorg is singularly : Co .
familiar with all fhe parties, their coun- : : Co
! sel, counsel's tacts, the witnesses and Administratvix of estate of Bronx
the relevant documents. fAnd he has ac- junior high school student who drowned |
camulated substantial efperiise regard- in the District of Columbia while partici-
As i ing the subject matter of ail aspects of pating in a field trip moved to transfer
LL) this litigation, inc is “the foreign oction in the District of tne District of	government ‘actions. } To require 2 new Columbia against owners of the ian
Judge to educate hifbelf or herself in where the drowning occured to the
CN © the myriad of comp ox matters about Southern District of New York in which|
= wiich Judge Lord hi§ gained extensive second action was pending against city,
kanowledze would, if the absence of ex- board of education and company waich
ceptional circumstsb 5, be counterpro- erranged the tour. The Judicial Pane:
ductive and an inefficignt use of judicial on Multidistrict Litigation held that inas- -
: © resources. Moregier, uch of the pre- uch as only two relatively simple negii-
trial proceedings that] has transpired gence actions were involved, and plain- :
thus far in thig litigation can be made tiff could seek order to make discovery So
applicable to tht foreignjgovernment ac- token in either netion applicable to tae :
tions,® and sufely Judgei{Lord is in the other and witnosses residing in New
best positionfto superviselthe extent and York would probably be involved in trin! | :
© manner of gach applicability. in the District of Columbia even if mo- =
| It is thorefore ordered hat, pursuant tion was granted, transfer would belo {
| to 28 USK. $ 1407, the adtions entitled serve the overall convenience of tha pas |	| The Government of Colombia v. Plizer, tics and witnesses and promote the just
| Ine, ot I. D. District of Cqlumbia, Civil and efficient conduct of the fitize ion. \
| Action No. 74-1747 and They Coverament Motion denied.	: of Kored v. Pfizer, Inc, et al, D. District - . .
of Colyfabia, Civil Action No. 74-1748, 1. Courts o=571.2 :
| be, and the same hereby are, transferred The existence of common questions :
to thy District of Minnesota and, with of fact between actions is but one condi- }:
| 5. Sec Maaual for Complex Litigation, Paris 1 and II, Scciions 3.11 {rev. ed. 1973).
Fy . :

I Case MDL No. 222 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 3
LO IN i SWNING INCIDENT AT QUALITY INN NORTHEAST 1223
co Cito as 405 F.Supp. 1501 (1976) : :
tion precedent -asier under multi PER CURIAM
district Jitigalion statute. 28 U.S.CA. Osvaldo Torres, Jr. wos a 18-year-oia
§ 1407. student participating in a field trin to = :
2. Cours TITS - . the District of Soiumbla sponsored by his .
; Before a transfer will be ordered, JUHI pi 82405. In the Bronx, "Newthe pan on muiiidistriet litigation must * 00K. Walle swiinning at ae sguality
be satisfied that all the statutory criteria 160 Northeast in Wushiugton, D. C,
have been mel. 23 US.C.A. § 1407. where {ne ErOuD Was siLying, Osvaldo
Torres crowned. His body was discover-
; 3. Courts =271.2 ed at the bottom of the pool.
| Action pending in District of Dis- .
trices of Columbia against owners of inn Two actions alleging various types of
| were 3ronx junior high school student negligence were thereafter instituted by
drowned while on a field trip would not the Adminisiratrix of his estate: one in
| be transferred to Southern District of the District of the District of Columbia
: ~ New York for coordinated or consolidat- and the other in the Southern District of
ed pretriai proceedings in action against New York. Defendants in the District
city, board of education and company of Columbia action include the owners of
waich arranged the tour inasmuch as the Quality Ina where the drowning oc-
only two relatively simple negligence ac- curred, the Inn's general manager and
tions were involved and plaintiff could the entities and individuals responsible
take other measures (0 avoid uameces- for maintalaing and supervising the pool. ’
; sary duplication of ‘discovery. 28 U.S. Defendants in the New York action are
: C.A. § 1407. the City of New York, its Board of Edu-
i B . . ae - ~ . -
; 4 Courts C=ITIO : cation and Teachers Tours, Inc, which
Pe “LOUIS adi. \ oi © had arranged for transportation, accom-
TR . After actions had been transferred 1autions, sightseeing, food, lodzing and
i under multidistrict litigation statute for other services for the junior high group.
C : consolidated pretzial proceedings, the ac- Plaintiff moves the Panel for an order : :i. tions ars thereafter returned to their re- transterrinethe District of Columbia or
== spective transferor courts for trial unless tion to the Southorn District of New
| they nave previously been terminated in’ York for Jinated or con. Ye 4 Wthe transferee court op transferred by . oo or coor na ea or consolicate pre-
ihe transferee judge under statute pro- trial 2i15S’ pursuany “0 23 USC.
| viding for change of venue or statute 5 ao rine action pending 2 toat
! providing for cure or waiver of defects. py SN tion onpose tr oo o
28 US.C.A. §§ 1404(a), 1405, 140%; Rules 2-H	) 200 QUPOSC Hamsor Wie :
of Prccedure	of the Judicial Pancl on sefencan 10 ke * Moret) acuon ave.Hfultidistrict Litigation, rule 11, 28 US. taken no posron on tae question. We
C.A. following section 1407; Fed.Rules {ind insusiicient basis for transfer underCiv.Proc. rule 45(d)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1407 and, accordingly, deny the] motion! - :
Co : ) Movant argues thal transfer of the
Before ALFRED P. MURRAH,* District of Columbia action to the South.	; : TOVEIA] MT QTL : mt
Chairman, and JOHN MINOX WwISTO, ern District of New York is approgriate
! SOWARD WXRINTELD, EDWIN A. because all wilncswes to the incident are
ROCBION, WILLIAM IL BECKER, JO- . lscaicd in New York, other than the life
i SOPH S. LORD, iI, and STANLEY A. guard oa duty at the time of the drown- ’
| WRIGEL, Judges of the Panel . ing, whose deposition has dlrcady been |
*Judge Musrah took no part in the consideration 5 F.RD. 253, 264 (1679), the Guestion of
or decision of this matter. transfer under Section 1407 was submitted on
1. All the parties waived their right to oral ar- the bricis.
© pumeat and, pursuant to Rule 14, RPJP.ML,
® 405F.Supp.—B2Va © ,

Case MDL No. 222 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 30f3 Fn :
. Ly FRY : o
| Ra . <0 ‘ : I :CE = ©1935 405 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT or
taken ia the District of Columbia. She ducted under the supervision of a sinzle
| ) maintains that the requisite common judge, the actions are thereafter ro-
questions of fact exist and that judicial turned to their respective transleros
time will be conserved by resolving both courts for trial unless, of course, ihy
acuions in a single legal proceeding. . have previously been terminated in the
| [1-8] The existence of common ques- transferee court or transferred by he
tions of fact between actions is, as we Lransicree juage ander 28 o U.S.C. oo
: have often noted, but one condition 1404{a) or 2 U.S.C. § 2400. DEE aie
| precedent lo transfer under Section 1407. 1, R.2JPMLi. v2 F.R.D. 253, 280
© Zee, eg, In re Highway Accident Near (1979): Accordingly’ ilnesses Wo res
Rockville, Connecticut, on December 59, Sid¢ in New coTL OWLprobably be me
1972, 333 F.Supp. 574, 575 (Jud. Pan ule. VOIVed in tral in the District of Colura-- oo
Lit.1975). Before a transfer will be or- bia even 1 we graaicd tne motion now
| dered, the Panel must be satisfied thay before us- . And, whether or not. weall the statutory criteria have been met. 87300 the motion, discovery irom these
Cy "Id In the circumstances of this particu- witnesses wu likely ogeur a proxpd~ iar litigation, we are not persuaded that to waere Ley ave. See Rule 45(c)(2),
the requested iransfer would serve the Aederal Rules of Civil Procedure. aE :- © .overail convenience of the parties and © It is therefore ordered that the motion
witnesses and promote the just and effi- pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer .
; cient conduct of the litigation. the actions listed on the following Sehed- :| Only two reiatively simple negligence ule A ve, and the same hereby is, denied.
actions are involved hero—tos few and Co :
riot complex enough to warrant transfer. - . ’
A. : . See In re Scotch. Whiskey Antitrust Lizi- ema : oo :	oJ gation, 259” F.Supp. 543" (Jud.Pan.Muit. JJ
i Lit.1669). © . : oo
Inasmuch	as plaintiff is the same in oo oo
Sn -cach of these actions, she can seck an: : : . ’ |
appropriate order to make discovery tak- RETATD, WEOLESALY =o DAERPATM.
cn in either action-applicable to the oti1- MENT CORE UNIO i LOCAL843er. Of Maddal for Complex Litigation, =~.
Part 1, § 3.11 (rev. ed. 1973). Further Vv.
: . ’ more, plaintiff can take other measures Dr. John T. ITNLOD, bs Director of the	+ Ta 13 Tati Se
cto avoid unnecessary cuplication of dis- Cost of Livixy Coupcil and the Groot
! covery, for example: she could file no- Adiantiz & PXeific fea Company, fac.
tices for a particular deposition in both . Co
: | E | the New York and District of Columbia | Civ. A. 48- 74-848 A.courts, “thereby making the deposition United StateffDistrict Court,
| applicable in each jurisdiction; she could N. D. Necrgia,
Lo seek orders from the two courts direct- . Atlant vision.
ing the parties to coordinate their pre- Dec 16. Nos :| trial efforts; and she could seck a stinu- JCCf10, No. |intion among the parties that ali Gio
| covery maybe used in both aelions. Appeal was Rakea fdm a decision ofa Thus, suitable alternatives to a transicr tae Cost of Living Cound determina
unacr Section 1407 are available to the iaat, although fin employe} unit's oda.
: movant ia this litigation. tebic position” entitled it Yo a pay wt-
so [4] Plaintiff, moreover, has apparent- justment in fxcess of apylicable DAY
ly misconstrued the result that is attena- board standa 5, implementation of iho
ant upon (ransfers under Scetion 1407. adjustment ofntained in the ulit's coilce-
Lo - N Adthough pretrial ‘proceedings are con- tive bargalnfhg agreement should be de-
® E we RET I.Doda vo h .	. ! .
| : . :