IN RE: Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois, on May 25, 1979

. Case MDL No. 391 Decument 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 17
ur) Gul | oe
CIAL PANEL Bh. EE kha Shi tntgNp SF, M . -
5 ve TIT I0T LITIGATION 7 Co EEEGTRRA TAN EE a.
: HEE S377BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL Sr
ON ps 13 919 :
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION oe - bo -
oo AA VRINIA TL iD iARY ; Co
J iin He oS ’ ro
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER NEAR ) D ye THERANEL
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ON MAY 25, ) ’
1979 ) Bn
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE MURRAY I. GURFEIN, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWIN A. ROBSON, Le
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY, ROY W. HARPER, AND - a
CHARLES R. WEINER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.
WEIGEL, Judge of the Panel
I. BACKGROUND
On May 25, 1979, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 jet aircraft :
being operated by American Airlines (American) crashed shortly -
after take-off from O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, -
Illinois. The 258 passengers and thirteen crew members : Co
aboard the pc-10,%/ and two persons on the ground, died 8
in the crash. In addition, several persons on the ground Vo i
were injured and substantial property damage occurred at
the crash site.
At the time of the hearing, sixteen actions arising :
from the disaster were before us on motions to transfer oo
them to a single district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for
| 1/ We have been advised that of the decedents aboard the
DC-10, approximately 135 resided in the southern California
area, approximately 70 in the Chicago area, and that the
rest were residents of New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Texas, or one of twelve foreigncountries.
FPI~MAR—3.27.79-6N-1781

© Case MDL No. 391 Document? Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 17
2/ I B
1 coordinated or consolidated pretrial -proceedings.= Twelve :
2 of these actions are pending in the Northern District of .
3 Illinois; three in the Central District of California; and
4 one in the Southern District of New York. American and oo
5 McDonnell Douglas are defendants in all the actions. General
Electric Company, manufacturer of the engines, is a defendant DE
in most. Rockford Aerospace Products, Inc., the alleged A
7 . Co
manufacturer of certain bolts installed on the engine mountings,
8 is named as a defendant in one. Plaintiffs in the actions
9 allege that the conduct of the defendants in the design,
0 manufacture, maintenance and/or operation of the American :
1 DC-10 caused the crash. Plaintiffs rely, inter alia, on : CL
5 theories of negligence and strict liability. RE
All parties favor transfer of the actions to a single cn :
3 oo
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. . . .
4 ~The sole dispute among them is as to which district that
> should be. Three different districts have been suggested
6 -— the Northern District of Illinois, by the plaintiffs
7 there and by all four defendants; the Central District of Co =
8 California, by the plaintiffs there; and the Southern District
9 of New York, by the plaintiff there.
J 2/ All parties have stated in writing their respective
Positions on the motions before us and have either appeared
1 at the hearing or have waived oral argument. The Panel
has been advised that 46 other actions arising from this no> air disaster are now pending in federal district courts.
It is anticipated that many more such actions will be filed
3 in the future. As the additional actions come to our attention
they will be considered for transfer as "tag-alongs". See
Rules 1, 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 562, 567-69	L (1978).
5
FPI-MAR~=3.27-79-6M4-1781

. Case MDL No. 391 Documeny 2_ Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 17.
1 | | |
o IT. HOLDING i
2 Acting under the governing statute (28 U.S.C. §1407), )
3 we find that these actions involve common questions of fact
4 and determine that their transfer to the Northern District -
5 of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
6 will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
7 and best promote the just and efficient conduct of all the
5 actions before us.
ITI. THE NEED FOR CENTRALIZED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
> The cases now before us present a prime example of
10 the need which gave rise to enactment of Section 1407. |
11 See, e.g., 114 Cong. Rec. 4924, 4925, 4926 (1968). If these
12 actions were not transferred as authorized by that statute,
@.. there inevitably would be repetitious depositions of scores |14 of witnesses, repetitious examinations of thousands of docu-
15 ments, and yet other myriad duplications of pretrial pro-
ceedings. Much time and effort of numerous parties, witnesses,
to attorneys and judges would be needlessly wasted. That waste
17 would be exceptionally serious in these cases because of
18 the unusually complex issues they involve. Centralization
19 for pretrial proceedings will also serve the salutary purposes
20 of forestalling conflicts in pretrial rulings and of other-
21 wise streamlining pretrial proceedure. See, e.g., In re 4
22 Air Crash Disaster at Huntington, West Virginia, on November 14, |)s 1970, 342 F. Supp. 1400, 1402 (J.P.M.L. 1972). !
e- | |
25 |
|
FRI-MAR—3.27.79-64.1781

Case MDL No. 391 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 17 }
1 :
We are sensitive to the fact that many of the parties
2 in the actions before us have suffered the grievous loss :
3 of loved ones. We appreciate that centralization of these
4 actions in any one district may cause some parties some
5 inconvenience occasioned by the sheer mechanics of transfer.
6 See In re "East of the Rockies' Concrete Pipe Antitrust
” Cases, 302 F. Supp. 244, 254-55 (J.P.M.L. 1969) (concurring
opinion). Overall, however, our experience with some 400
° groups of multidistrict litigation over the past eleven
9 years satisfies us that all parties in the litigation at
10 bar will benefit from significant savings of time, effort
11 and expense as a result of pretrial centralization.
12 Because transfer is solely for pretrial purposes, there
13 is no requirement that parties or witnesses travel to the
14 transferee district. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2),
45(d) (2). Furthermore, since all plaintiffs in these cases
1° have practically identical interests on issues of liability,
16 sensible use of liaison counsel, lead counsel and steering
17 committees can do more than trim the pretrial process.
18 By providing an efficient and economical means of representing
19 the interests of all parties, it can also eliminate the
20 need for most counsel to travel to the transferee district.
21 See Manual for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, §§1.90-1.93
i. (rev. ed. 1977 and cum. supp. 1978). Concentrating counsel
participation will not preclude all parties and their attorneys
23 from keeping abreast of all developments in the litigation.
24 See also id. at Parts I and II, §§2.31.
25
FPI-MAR—3.27.78.6M-1781

Case MDL No. 391 Document 2 “Filed 05/19/15 Page 5 of 17 |
1 IV. FACTORS DETERMINING CHQICE OF TRANSFEREE DISTRICT
2 The plaintiffs favoring the Central District of Cali-
® 5 fornia as the transferee forum contend that the liability . |
4 phase of this litigation will focus upon the design of the
DC-10. In urging transfer to that district, they point R
° out that the aircraft was designed, manufactured and assembled |
6 by McDonnell Douglas at its Long Beach, California facility;
7 that the aircraft was certified as airworthy by the Federal
8 Aviation Administration (FAA) operating out of the FAA's
o Western Regional Office in Los Angeles; that McDonnell Douglas
10 plans to conduct tests in the Los Angeles area on the type
11 of aircraft involved in the crash; that recommended maintenance
procedures for the DC-10 were developed by McDonnell Douglas
12 in Long Beach; that McDonnell Douglas trained American's
® personnel in maintenance procedures and techniques in Los
14 Angeles; that approximately one-half of the victims lived
15 in the southern California area (almost twice as many as
16 those who lived in the Chicago area) and that it is therefore
1s to be expected that more suits will be filed in the Central
18 District of California than anywhere else; that California
19 law will likely govern the actions filed there, and a California
court is better able than one in Illinois to apply California
20 law. The California plaintiffs also contend that if the
21 actions are transferred to Illinois for pretrial, the transferee
22 court might keep them there for trial based upon the provisions
23 of 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). In that case, they declare, they
24 would be prejudiced because they seek punitive damages and
Q..
FPI~MAR—3.27.78.64.1781

Case MDL No. 391 Document® -Filed 05/19/15 Page 6 of 17 } .
1 would be compelled to present the testimony of the allegedly
2 culpable McDonnell Douglas officers and employees to a jury
3 by the use of depositions, rather than by live testimony -
4 pursuant to trial subpoena.>’
5 The plaintiff in the Southern District of New York oo
action before the Panel asserts that the Panel should centralize
° this litigation in that district because (1) New York is
7 conveniently located to Washington, D.C., where the FAA
8 and the National Transportation Safety Board maintain their
9 headquarters, thus facilitating discovery of the findings
10 of those two bodies; (2) American has its principal place
11 of business in New York; (3) two insurance carriers involved
12 in this litigation maintain offices there; and (4) New York
is conveniently located for the attorneys in this litigation.
13 The plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois
14 point out that the Panel has usually centralized domestic
15 air disaster litigation in the district where the crash
16 occurred. See, e.g., In re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton
17 International Airport in Denver, Colorado, on August 7,
18 1975, 447 F. Supp. 1071 (J.P.M.L. 1978); In re Air Crash
19 Disaster at John F. Kennedy International Airport on June
24, 1975, 407 F. Supp. 244 (J.P.M.L. 1976). They also point
2° out that most of the reasons which have customarily underlain21
92 3/ This argument, however valid it may be,	is one most appro-priately addressed to the transferee court in opposition to
any transfer to that court for trial. See In re Anthracite
23 Coal Antitrust Litigation; 436 F. Supp. 402, 403-04 (J.P.M.L.
1977); In re Air Crash Disaster at Paris, France,	on March 3,
24 1974, 386 F. Supp. 1404, 1405 (J.P.M.L. 1975). =
25 |FPI-MAR—3.27.78.6M.1781

} Case MDL No. 391 Document3 Filed 05/19/15 Page	7 of 17
1 our "situs of the crash" rule are present here. For example,
® 2 many of the eyewitnesses to the accident, including the
3 air traffic controllers, are located in the Chicago area. :
4 So are numerous relevant photographs, videotapes and films.
5 The FAA office located near Chicago was responsible for - |
approving the engine which allegedly fell from the DC-10
© during this disaster.
7 We have evaluated and weighed all the relevant factors,
8 and conclude that the Northern District of Illinois is the |
9 best for the conduct of coordinated or consolidated pretrial
10 proceedings in this litigation. In addition to the reasons
11 already noted which favor the Northern District of Illinois
12 as the transferee district, many of the considerations urged
in support of transfer to the Central District of California
@" as well as many of those urged in support of the Southern
14 District of New York combine to make the Northern District
15 of Illinois the best forum for pretrial proceedings. Transfer
16 either to New York or southern California would require
17 transcontinental travel for those attorneys and parties
18 located on one side of the continent who need or desire
19 to participate in pretrial proceedings conducted at the
other. Moreover, it is clear on the facts before us that
20 pretrial proceedings concerning liability issues will focus
21 on at least six different geographic areas: California;
22 New York; Chicago; Washington, D.C.; Oklahoma (the location
23 of American's primary maintenance facility); and Ohio (where
"3 the engine was manufactured). Thus, the Northern District25
FPI~MAR—3.27.79.6%.171

Case MDL No. 391 Docum@an82~ Filed 05/19/15 Page 8 of 17 .
1 of Illinois, with its central location and concomitant ease
2 of accessibility, stands out as the most appropriate transferee
3 forum.?’ See In re Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust 3
4 Litigation, 328 F. Supp. 218, 220 (J.P.M.L. 1971); In re
Library Editions of Children's Books, 297 F. Supp. 385, EE
5 .
387 (J.P.M.L. 1968).
6
The fact that the transferee court may have occasion
7 to apply non-Illinois law to some of the actions in this
8 litigation serves as no impediment to Section 1407 transfer.
° As we stated in In re Air Crash Disaster at John F. Kennedy
10 International Airport on June 24, 1975, supra, 407 F. Supp.
~47:
11 at 246
: [I]t is within the very nature of coordinated
12 or consolidated pretrial proceedings in multidistrict
litigation for the transferee judge to be called upon
13 to apply the law of more than one state. See, e.g.,
In re Air Crash Disaster at Boston, Massachusetts,
14° on July 31, 1973, 399 F. Supp. 1106 (D.Mass. 1975). |
Thus, [all parties] can be assured that [the law of
5 the transferor district], as well as any other state's1 law, if appropriate, will be duly applied by the transferee
judge.
16 :
In considering such matters as the place of trial and
17
special legal issues, the relevant provisions of Section
8
1 1407 and Rule 11, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 569-71 (1978),
19
20 :
21 _— | . . .
4/ Convenience of counsel often coincides with convenience of
99 the parties they represent and is a factor to be considered	under Section 1407. See In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Liti-
gation, supra, 436 F. Supp. at 403; In re San Juan, Puerto Rico,
23 Air Crash Disaster Litigation, 316 F. Supp. 981, 982 (J.P.M.L.
1970). See also In re Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust
24 Litigation, 328 F. Supp. 218, 219-20 (J.P.M.L. 1971).
25
FPI~MAR—3-27-.79.86M-1781

- 9 -
Case MDL No. 391 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	9 of 17 :
1 should be kept in mind. Once common pretrial proceedings
2 and any other pretrial proceedings that the transferee court
® 3 considers appropriate have been completed in the transferee
4 district, each transferred action is to be remanded by the
Panel for further pretrial and trial to the district from
5 -
which each action was transferred. See, e.g., In re A. H.
6
Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability	SoS ge ome an ON OSG LUD Froducts Liability
7 Litigation, 453 F. Supp. 108, 110 (J.P.M.L. 1978); In re
8 Air Crash Disaster near Dayton, Ohio, on March 9, 1967,
9 386 F. Supp. 908, 909 (J.P.M.L. 1975); In re "East of the
10 Rockies" Concrete Pipe Antitrust Cases, supra, 302 F. Supp.
11 at 254 (concurring opinion). In appropriate circumstances,
various transferee judges have even obtained an intercircuit
12
assignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §292(d) to conduct the
13
C) remaining pretrial proceedings and trial in a transferor
14 district.’
15
16 5/ This procedure was recently implemented in In re Air
Crash Disaster at Tenerife, Canary Islands, on March 27,
17 1977 (MDL-306), which the Panel had centralized in the Southern
District of New York. After a number of actions in that
18 litigation had been remanded by the Panel to the Northern
and Central Districts of California, the Panel aided the
transferee judge in obtaining an intercircuit assignment
19 so that he could conduct trials in the remanded actions
in those two California districts. In another multidistrict
20 docket, In re Republic National-Realty Equities Securities
Litigation (MDL-174), the Panel assisted the transferee
21 judge, presiding over the pretrial proceedings in the Southern
District of New York, to secure an intercircuit assignment
29 to sit in the Northern District of Texas upon his determination
that some actions should be transferred for all purposes
to the Northern District of Texas under Section 1404 (a).23
24
@.
FPI-MAR—3.27.79.64-1781

Case MDL No. 391 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 10 of 17 J .
1 A Section 1407 transferee judge does, of course, have : o2 the power under Section 1404(a) to transfer actions in the i i
3 transferee district to that district or to any other appropriate
2 district	for all purposes. See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord,
447 F.2d 122, 124-25 (2d Cir. 1971); In re Aircrash near .
° Duarte, California, on June 6, 1971, 357 F. Supp. 1013,
° 1015-16 (C.D.Cal. 1973); Rule 11(b), R.P.J.P.M.L., supra,
7 78 F.R.D. at 569.. It is also true that most actions transferred
8 pursuant to Section 1407 are not remanded to their transferor
9 districts, either because the actions are terminated prior
10 to trial by settlement or otherwise in the transferee district,
11 or because the actions are transferred by the transferee
12 court under Sections 1404(a) or 1406. In any case, the oo
Panel has neither the authority nor the desire to control ®
13 decisions of the transferee judge made in the actual conduct
14 of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See,
15 e.g., In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract
16 Litigation, 436 F. Supp. 990, 996 (J.P.M.L. 1977); In re
17 | Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation, supra, 436 F. Supp.
18 at 403-04; In re Equity Funding Corporation of America
19 Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1384 (J.P.M.L.
0 1974) . One of the virtues of coordinated or consolidated
2 pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 is that all pretrial
21 rulings, including Section 1404(a) determinations, are made
22 by a transferee judge who, from day-to-day supervision over
23 all aspects of the litigation, is in the best position to ®24
25 |

Case MDL No. 391 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 11 of 17
. «It
1 consider and protect the rights of all concerned.®’ see, |® 2 e.g., In re Uranium Industry Antitrust Litigation, 458 F. : |
3 Supp. 1223, 1230 (J.P.M.L. 1978).
4 V. CONCERNING NOTICE TO NON-LITIGANTS
5 Plaintiff in one of the California actions now before
us has moved the Panel (1) to direct	a notice concerning
6 )
the pendency of the present motions before the Panel to
“2 the families of all victims, regardless of whether	or not
8 they have brought suit; (2) to advise these families in
9 || the notice that their rights may be affected by the Panel's
10 decision; and (3) to defer further consideration of these
11 motions until the notice has been disseminated and the re- .
12 cipients have had an opportunity to appear	at another Panel
® hearing on this matter.	13
This plaintiff argues that Section 1407(c) bestows
14 :
upon the Panel the inherent power to notify potential litigants
EE of the proceedings before it, and that constitutional
16
17
18 :
19 6/ For this very reason the Panel, in considering remand
of any action previously transferred under Section 1407,
20 places great weight on a transferee judge's suggestion that
remand has become appropriate. See, €.g., In re A. H. Robins
Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation,
21 supra, 453 F. Supp. at 110. Similarly, any party before
the Panel advocating remand of an action without first obtaining
22 a recommendation of remand from a transferee judge bears
a strong burden of persuasion. See, €.9., In re Holiday
23 Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation, 433 F. Supp.
1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977).
@- |
25
FPI—~MAR—=3.27-79-6M.1731

Case MDL No. 391 Document	2, Filed 05/19/15 Page 12 of 17 .
. . I
1 considerations of due process impose upon it the duty to ®2 do so0.l/
3
4 : —
7/7 This plaintiff further argues that the Panel's decision
5 is of vital importance to all litigants and potential litigants,and that the proposed notice is particularly crucial in
6 the context of the present litigation because United States
Aviation Underwriters Group, "the insurance consortium behind
= American Airlines," has directly communicated with the families
of victims in an attempt to dissuade those families from
initiating litigation. In one of a series of letters to
8 these families, United States Aviation Underwriters Group : :states, inter alia, as follows:
9 .
You may find yourselves under pressure to sign
10 . @ contingent fee retainer with an attorney whereby
his fee is a percentage of the final award. The rationale
1 - for such a percentage fee is that the lawyer risks !
1 getting no fee if there is no recovery. There is also
nothing to be gained by a precipitous lawsuit. We
12 do suggest that it would be in your best interest to )
~ evaluate the offers which will be made to you and obtain (13 the help of your attorney based upon a fee for the
. work involved rather than a percentage of the settlement
14 or award.
Immediate legal action is unnecessary to avoid
15 permitting applicable time periods (e.g., statutes Lo
of limitations, etc.) to expire. Should settlement
16 discussions not ultimately result in a termination
of any claims that might exist, we provide a reasonable
17 extension of any applicable time limitation based upon
the facts and circumstances of the individual case
18 in order that you will have ample time to take any
path you choose as to counsel you retain, the basis
upon which he is paid or whether you wish to institute
19 a lawsuit. Please do not be rushed into limiting your
alternatives or committing yourselves needlessly to
20 an inordinate legal expense.
21
22
2 | ®24
25
: FPI=MAR===3.27.78.-6M-1721

| Case MDL No. 391 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 13 of 17
1 ) : !
Regardless of the merits as to giving such notice to |
® 2 non-litigants, we lack the power to require it. When faced i |
3 with a very similar request in In re Air Crash Disaster
4 at Tenerife, Canary Islands, on March 27, 1977, 435 F. Supp.
5 927, 929 (J.P.M.L. 1977), we held as follows: "The Panel :
6 is not empowered to enter such an order under Section 1407....
A request of this type should be presented to the federal
7
district court in which one of the constituent actions was
8
originally filed or to the transferee court following transfer
9 under Section 1407." We feel compelled to emphasize again :
10 here that Section 1407 in no way authorizes the Panel to :
11 transmit notice of the pendency of proceedings before the
12 Panel to potential litigants.
9: In this connection, Section 1407(c) provides that:
14 "The [Planel shall give notice to the parties in all actions
in which transfers for coordinated or consolidated pretriali5
proceedings are contemplated, and such notice shall specify
16 .
the time and place of any hearing to determine whether such
LY transfer shall be made." (Emphasis added). The term “party”
18 can have a number of different meanings, determined primarily
19 by the context in which the term is utilized. As one court
20 has observed:
21 In its broadest meaning the word 'party' includes
one concerned with, conducting, or taking part in any
matter or proceeding, whether he is named or participates
22 as a formal party or not. In a variety of situations
persons not named in {an action] and not appearing
23 in any formal capacity have been held to be ‘parties’
or 'a party to' litigation in which they were concerned
9: or affected. (Footnote containing numerous definitions
of the term 'party' and footnote containing numerous
citations omitted.)
25 | FPI~MAR~=3.27.79-6M-17812

Case MDL No. 391 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 14 of 17 . -- 14 -
1 Fong Sik Leung v. Dulles, 226 F.2d 74, 81 (9th Cir. 1955) (con- |
2 curring opinion). We are convinced, however, that this
3 broad meaning cannot be attributed to "party" or "parties"
4 as used in Section 1407(c¢). The term "parties" in Section
. 1407(c) is unequivocally limited to "parties in all actions i
in which transfers... are contemplated" (emphasis added).
® Moreover, the demand for notice to potential litigants would
7 involve the Panel's intrusion into decisions made appropriately
8 only by trial and appellate courts or by Congress. While
9 we find no merit in any claim that any constitutional right
10 is violated by failure to give notice to potential litigants,
11 we express no opinion as to the desirability of the giving :
12 of such notice by an appropriate court when feasible.
Unless and until Congress amends Section 1407 to authorize
13 the Panel to issue notice of the pendency of proceedings
14 before the Panel to non-litigants, we must deny motions
15 for issuance of such notices even when feasible. For an
16 interesting case dealing with these questions, see Pan American
17 World Airways, Inc. v. United States District Court for
18 the Central District of California, 523 F.2d 1073 (9th Cir.
19 1975).
20 Finally, we see no reason why we should defer our ruling
21 in this litigation. The record is sufficiently developed
for us to make an informed decision as to transfer and as
22 to the appropriate transferee district. See In re Air Crash
23 " Disaster near Saigon, South Vietnam, on April 4, 1975, 404
24 F. Supp. 478, 479 n. 1 (J.P.M.L. 1975). Indeed, many of
25 |
, FPI-MAR—3.27.79. 64-1781

- Case MDL No. 391 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 15 of 17-15-
1 the benefits of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
® 2 —~ for example, conserving the time and effort of the parties,
3 witnesses, attorneys and judges; avoiding duplicative discovery
4 and other pretrial efforts; and eliminating the possibility
5 of conflicting rulings -- can best be accomplished by Section ob
1407 transfer at the earliest possible date. Cf., e.g.,
° In re Women's Clothing Antitrust Litigation, 455 F. Supp.
7 1388, 1390-91 (J.P.M.L. 1978)(litigation not transferred
8 because of advanced stage of pretrial proceedings in the
9 actions).
10 Tag-along actions filed outside the transferee district
11 can be quickly transferred there by the Panel under Section
12 1407 through use of conditional transfer orders. See Rule
9. 9, R.P.J.P.M.L., supra, 78 F.R.D. at 567-68. Tag-along |
actions originally filed in the transferee district are
14 directed to the transferee judge or judges pursuant to local
15 court rules for the assignment of related actions and require
16 no Panel involvement. See Rule 10(a), id. at 568. And
17 all tag-along actions can be smoothly integrated under the
18 guiding hand of a transferee judge into the coordinated
19 or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See In re Pennsylvania
20 Life Company Securities Litigation, 436 F. Supp. 406, 408
(J.P.M.L. 1977); Manual for Complex Litigation, supra, Parts
24 I and II, §§3.11.
22
23
®- |
25
FPI-NAR——3.27.73.6M.1781

Cee TERED SR TLL RIE es
| Case MDL No. 391 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 160f17 ~~ .
1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2 §1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and
3 pending in districts other than the Northern District of
4 Illinois be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that
| court, assigned to the Honorable Edwin A. Robson and the
oe Honorable Hubert L. Will for coordinated or consolidated
7 pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and
8 listed on Schedule A. Each transferee judge shall have
9 total jurisdiction over the coordinated	or consolidated
10 pretrial proceedings in this litigation and each judge may |
11 act individually and/or jointly with respect to those pro-
ceedings.
12 |
13
14
15 .
16 | |
17
18 |
19
20
: 1 :
22 i
23 .
24
4
25 ||
PP-WAR—3.27.79.6%.1781

. Case MDL No. 391 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 17 of 17> * (a
) | MDL-391 SCHEDULE A |
9. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL ACTION IliO. |	tt imme naee ESE Ui inn g ema t:
3 Myrna Stogel, etc. v. McDonnell 79-1960-WiiB
Douglas Corp., et al.
4
George W. Nordhaus, et al. v. McDonnell 79-2112-MRP -
5 Douglas Corp., et al. .
. Yie-Chen Lin, et al. v. McDonnell 79-2116-LTL
6 Douglas Corp., et al.
7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK :
8 Shutao H. Lin, etc. v. McDonnell 79 Civ. 3195
Douglas Corp., et al.
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS a
10 Thomas S. Ziemba, etc. v. McDonnell 78C2428
Douglas Corp., et al.
11 State National Bank, etc. v. McDonnell 79C2427
12 Douglas Corp., et al.
@. State National Bank, etc. v. McDonnell 79C2426	> Douglas Corp., et al.
14 State National Bank, etc. v. McDonnell 79C2425
Douglas Corp., et al.
15 LaSalle National Bank, et al. v. American 79C2311
Airlines, Inc., et al.16 :
Roy S. Lang, et al. v. McDonnell Douglas 79C2381
17 Corp., et al. : }
18 Leila B. Gemme, etc. v. American Airlines, 79C2182
Inc., et al.
19 Inge Maria Kahl, etc. v. McDonnell 79C2175
Douglas Corp., et al.
20
Inge Maria Kahl, etc. v. McDonnell 79C2307
21 Douglas Corp., et al.
29 Andrew Bellavia, et al. v. McDonnell © 79C2333
Douglas Corp., et al.
23 Merikay Spicuzza, etc. v. American 79C2310
® Airlines, Inc., et al.
Jewel Valladares, etc. v. American 79C2309
25 Airlines, et al.
FPI=MAR—3.27-79-8%.1781 - nis -