IN RE: Air Crash Near Benson, Arizona, on April 8, 1979

Case MDL No. 484 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3
oS CA . BEE
. ‘ AT Sy Er Lh Son - : . -
=fdJLiJ4 iON : ’ Lo
: ’ JAN ~ ; :
EES NA [1] ;
ER yo 1952 . th oo. A REASON ee |
Clin WF Fanlin / 2/5 i CoDOCKET NO. 484 WEEE SU
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE AIR CRASH NEAR BENSON, ARIZONA, ON APRIL 8, 1979 .
TRANSFER ORDER | } aaa
This litigation consists of three actions pending in SARE
three federal districts: one each in the Central District co
of California, the District of Arizona, and the Western
District of Texas. Presently before the Panel is a motion, ’
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, to transfer the Arizona and :
Texas actions to the Central District of California for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
action pending there. The motion is brought by United
Technologies Corporation, a defendant in the California So EE
action, and Sikorsky Aircraft Division of United Technologies :
Corporation, a defendant in all actions. no
On the basis of the papers filed,’ the Panel finds |
that these actions involve common questions of fact and :
that centralization of these actions under Section 1407
in the Central District of California will best serve the sr
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the vo :
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions .
share numerous factual questions concerning the cause or i :
causes of a helicopter crash near Benson, Arizona. Centralization ;
under Section 1407 is therefore necessary in order to prevent )
duplication of discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, Co
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, CL
and the judiciary. Lo
The Central District of California is the most preferable Co - RS
transferee district. The California action is the most : : or
advanced of the three actions, and much of the discovery
in these actions involves Navy personnel stationed in California,
where the helicopter was based.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and
pending in districts other than the Central District of Co
California be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
1/ The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the
question of transfer of these actions under Section 1407
was submitted on the briefs. Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89
F.R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).

Cae Case MDL No. 484 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	2 of 3
—2_
) Central District:of California and, with the consent of
é that court, assigned to the Honorable Francis C. Whelanfor coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
. the action pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
2
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

~~ = Case MDL No. 484 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3
é DOCKET NO. 484Schedule A
Central District of California
Sharyn Myles, et al. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Division
of United Technologies Corp., et al., C. A. No. 80-0135-FW
District	of Arizona
Sebastian Torres Flores, Jr., et al. v. Sikorsky Aircraft
Division of United Technology Corp., et al., C. A. No.
81-108-RMB
Western District of Texas
Sebastian Torres Flores, Jr., et al. v. Sikorsky Aircraft
Division of United Technologies Corp., C. A. No.
EP-81-CA-96