IN RE: Multidistrict Civil Actions Arising From the Air Crash Disaster at Falls City, Nebraska on August 6, 1966

Case MDL No. 17 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 6
SP a 7 ”}) :
C298 Fade 13S	: JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LTiGATION, i
: FILEDTHE JUDICIAL PANEL ry
on MAY2 1960 BEES
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Cay
BATRICIA D, wiLE Cri
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ACTIONS ARISING ) a
FROM THE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT FALLS CITY, ) DOCKET NO. 17
NEBRASKA ON AUGUST 6, 1966 )
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING TRANSFER n
OF MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 1407, EERE
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE CL
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, AND
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL .
EDWARD WEINFELD, D. J. :
A Braniff Airways BAC1l-11 broke up in flight and crashed
near Falls City, Nebraska on August 6, 1966. The 38 passengers -
and four crew members aboard the aircraft were killed and the
aircraft was totally destroyed. There are presently 21 cases
arising from this disaster pending in five different federal :
district courts,’ clearly multidistrict litigation. (See C
Schedule A.) The parties to these cases were ordered to show
cause why the cases should not be consolidated for pretrial
17 The claims of all plaintiffs in the actions filed in the
Northern District of Illinois have been satisfied and the .
only issue remaining is which defendant, Braniff Airways, :
Inc. or British Aircraft Corp., was responsible for the
: crash. E

Case MDL No. 17 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 2 of 6
® -a-
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407, and a hearing was held to
consider arguments of all interested parties.
There is no doubt that this type of litigation arising
out of a single disaster involves common questions of fact or |
that the convenience of parties and witnesses is generally
furthered by consolidation under Section 1407. However, each
application must be considered upon its merits and in relation
to particular problems in the various pending suits which are
the subject of the motion for consolidation or coordinated
pretrial proceedings.
The majority of the cases pending in the Northern District
C of Illinois and the Southern District of New York have proceeded
with the greatest expedition. In fact, the claims of the
plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois have been
settled. While plaintiffs in those suits no longer have an
interest, since they have been paid, those cases are still at
issue upon the cross-claims of the defendants British Aircraft
Corp. and Braniff Airways, Inc. In addition, substantial
venue and service questions still remain in those actions.
The New York cases have been the subject of extensive pretrial
discovery which has about been completed, and the cases are
about ready for trial. It does not appear there are venue
and service problems in the New York action.
| |

Case MDL No. 17 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	3 of 6
® a
In the Nebraska and other actions, pretrial procedure
has not been as advanced as in the instance of the Southern
District of New York. In the Nebraska actions questions of
venue and amenability to service of process have been raised
and are not finally settled. In some of the actions pending
in the Northern District of Texas questions of venue and
service have also been raised. In other actions in that
district these questions do not exist.
Under all these circumstances, to effect a transfer
at this time of the New York actions would serve to delay the
trial of those litigants who have been diligent in prosecuting
@® their claims and would not promote the "just and efficient
conduct" of those actions. An added factor that militates
against a transfer at this time under Section 1407 is the out-
standing and substantial venue and service questions still
unresolved	in the Illinois, Texas and Nebraska District Court
actions. Such undetermined issues will not be resolved by a
transfer under Section 1407, whereas transfers to the Southern
District of New York under Section 1406, if warranted, will
resolve the venue and service problems now existing in some
of those cases; 2/ in the others, transfer may be effected
under Section 1404(a). Thus, where appropriate, consolidation
2/ See Goldlawr, Ine. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962); Dubin
v. United States, 380 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1967).
@

Case MDL No. 17 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 6
* a
and coordination of all these cases for all purposes may be
achieved by transfers under Section 1406 in some cases and
under Section 1404 (a) in others.
For reasons stated, it is hereby
ORDERED that no transfer of any of these actions under
Section 1407, Title 28, U.S.C., be made at this time, but
without prejudice to subsequent motions for such transfer or
order of the Panel to show cause why such transfers should
not be made.
®
® |

Case MDL No. 17 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 6
® SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT	OF NEBRASKA
1. Grace Welter, etc., v. Braniff Airways, Inc. Civil Action
No. 3008
2. John Deines, ete. v. Braniff Airways, Inc., Civil Action
et al. No. 2595
3. Agnes Mary Brisbane, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd., et al. No. 3105
4. Donald G. Pauly, Jr., etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd., et al. No. 3106
5. Patricia L. Hilliker, etc. v. British Alrcraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd., et al. No. 3107
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
6. Agnes Mary Brisbane, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd. No. 3-2676-C
7. Patricia L. Hilliker, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
® Corp., Ltd. No. 3-2677~C
8. Donald G. Pauly, Jr., etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd. No. 3-2678-C
9. Agnes Mary Brisbane, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp (U.S.A.), Inc. No. 3-2730-C
10. Donald G. Pauly, Jr., etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp. (U.S.A.), Inc. No. 3-2731-A
11. Patricia L. Hilliker, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp. (U.S.A.), Inc., etc. No. 3-2732-C
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
12. Cecil P. Jacobson, etc. v. Braniff Airways, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 68 Civ. 1959
13. ElaireD. Eschbach, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd., et al. No. 68 Civ. 1979
14, Olga Johnson, etc. v. British Aircraft Corp., Civil Action
Ltd., et al. No. 67 Civ. 795

Case MDL No. 17 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 6 of 6
LI
® “0
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (CONTINUED)
15. Marie L. Graeber, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd., et al. No. 67 Civ. T94
16. Bill Rush Mosby, Jr., ete. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd., et al. No. 67 Civ. 793
17. Donna Wright, etc. v. British Aircraft Corp., Civil Action
Ltd., et al. No. 67 Civ. 677
18. Morgan W. Mills, etc. v. Braniff Airways, Civil Action
Inc., et al. Neo. 67 Civ. 929
19. Robert Leroy Kuhr, etc. v. British Aircraft Civil Action
Corp., Ltd., et al. No. 67 Civ. 3827
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
20. Edward Ryant Dyer, Jr., etc. v. Braniff Civil Action
Airways, Inc., et al. No. 2054-67
® NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS21. Frederick Mayer, etc. v. Braniff Airways, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 66 C 2164