IN RE: Public Air Travel Tariff Litigation

Cas e MDL No. 121 Docum i
CD ent 2 Filed 04/30/15 Pa1 I ge lof41
3 :
: Ey E: INREPURLICATRTRAVELPARIYELITIGATION 1991 : 1 aS; Citeus860F.Supp.1307(1073) . : :
C oe * : SCHEDULE A—Continued :	Trier : SouthernDistrictofNewYorlk BSo rebyCasadonav. Basggit Airlines Civil fection {tty : ‘ t No. 7H Civ. 614 : : :Loy “. . a I JE . :RARE pichard D-. Childsv. stern Airlines Civil fetion :	IEEE i No. TH Civ. H38 : Lohap . ny as NL AYi to : egalTofanov.IbternAirlines Civil @ctien |	foe ; jrasd N i » .Ca fs i No. 7§ Civ. 468Gin Lo © afiguel ArmandoJu ! v. Eastern Airlines Civilction } ‘ : ;SO SENOR and Lockheed Corp. No. 4 Civ. 196 : :Eo John 1ofane,ete. Vv. fmstern Airlines CivilHction ii : he : No. C Civ. 467 :R | a. a !3 walterLn.Pollakv. TigternAirlines Civil gction : . |	ja {+ ’ 5 1 a . N a. $i No. [3 Civ. R09 oo |FH porothyGordon,ete. EasternAirlines Civilction : : ]. 3 ae x . 3Copp i 8 . No. @Civ. 1694 C i: MaryCillis, ete.v-Eghtern Airlines CivilWwction °° CL | : :ie ; i No. T%Civ. 1695 g od i: EvelynRegaliaVv.OFifernAirlines : Civilfiction : ; ii BH No. T&Civ. 1914 \
; oi : i - i sternDistrictofNewYork i : ;	LE : N : i ET . % . . :Po ! SeephMama ravenAirtines Civil Bghion _ . ;; i wo (gO CY
In LIC : JesseWalkerv. Faflern Airlines Civil fetion oo :i : 2 No. 78C 52 :+ 3 . ’ | a: cer BL Co :CA i MaxNachmias,ottv.EasternAirlines Civil gction . Hd: i No. 78 C 500 SE : H: Lo 4 Rk [¢ . .: OA 3 : . : y } § H; : Cd i. (0 } :; i LC i . i . ) 0©werKumsi®SYSTER . : :
ENT i : wheretherewas&yoaldangerofconflict HE |	) i gnrePURLIOC AIRTRAVEL ing class determinations unless actions i ; 3! i ag "ne i . H HChg i TARIFF LYTIGATION. were so consolidated,where four of the . ] : |	4 No. 121. five actions were already under supervi-- © ! : :
OA . 7 JudicialpanelonpfultidistrictLitigation. sionofasinglejudee,andwherethetwo . t	! 3 actionspending 1mtheCentral Districtof i .Cd July 3, 1973. AS _; Californiawere moreadvanced than oth-TK : ersinareasofdiscoveryandpretrial. :: od i CL Orderaccordingly. BEDAL k The Judicial Panel on pMultidistviet Co oo :i Litigation transferred multidistrict ac- :Ow : ; lions,ineachofwhichitwasallegedthat Courts£22772 " : :defendant airlines had violated federal Multidistrict actions, in cach of '	2 “pr . - . - .
CA 4 tariff.regrutations by overchargiug for which il.was alleged thaldefendantau .- : RRa TR domestic passengers who flew lines had vielated federal tariff repute ) {OT : Lotween twopointsin theUnitedStates tionshyoverchargingforfarestodomes: |“ i for which no single joint fare had been lic passengers who flew between lwo ]i establishedtoCentral DistrictofCalifor- points in the United ates for which i	- . . . . - . . - . M
® nia,forconsolidatedpretrialproceedings, nosinglejointfarehadbeencelablished, ¢BE } en : EERE + « JE	ol POPREIN . .

Case MDL No. 121 Doc i	: umen
| t2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 20f4	:
em 1298 260 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT = TH
“ i Co awere transferred {or consolidated pre- must be consolidated pursuant to 2, n of whether
. triad proceedings to the Central District U.S.C. § 1407 in the Central District oo {iff Rule 85 in ¢of California, where there was a real California for pretrial proceedings, i 4 legal one and
danger of conflicting clnss determina- \ . . boop OTi So ware RY Fach of the actions involves the a gers of common	tinns unless actions were §9 consolidated, i i He ai 1 yased on the pun
: where four of the five actions were al- propriate method of computing air fu. “tickets involv: oo ’ . ) . in si tons where travel belwee i op tigkess, ans. i ready under supervision of a single in situations where travel belween te. i tween different!~ judge, and where the two actions pending both w en the bnited States require oy avsrue that eac: So oS Centro istri Xi Frond ransportation on two or more airline 1° ’ ae= in the Central District of California Le ving fares have hee arlin i 4 separately tc	5 were mote advanced than others in arcas and no joint fares have heen published} A.- » advanced than ofhers IM ATCAS yy 0pticipating airlines. In many « + jutors which mayof discovery and pretrial. 28 US.C.A. § A in ‘ "et te I | My cay plicable are: : vr ~s wher § 1OCeSSArY: ake connect. i000 }Co : (407: Ted.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 23, 28 hereit is necessary to fake comneclivc; 4 Cogaert that tU.S.C.A {lights of two or more airlines to reat V0 )oo SGA. : iat ries © well as the qn: : R a destination, the airlines involved hay. 4 a	: . . . . oR asey ww *	ep } published joint faves which establish se cases : ! u
: ; : . : . } os am each plointy	: ; . single charge between origin and dest poo	ve Befor FRED P.M 1, Chair- : ong JE HE amber
i. fore ALD IO » nation along a particular vouling. Hf j er	: ; an, . ] * . Lo. . : ; .: bo YARD SEINFELD BOWIN A there is no joint fare published for inter {We have consis	1) . 4 o t 4 4 - ? .
o Co ROBSON WiLL I AN IL BECKER jo. line Lravel, however, a fare must be con. sility for confl|	i . N . ' ‘ - i.
; SECU gq 1 ORL Th * a | STANLEY structed pursuant to rules set forth in 3.nS under Rule: " "WEIGEL J ; ih"o : | the tariffs filed by the airlines with th {an important f	4 « ty > ore .
: : . WEIGEL, Jurges of the Lane. Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). [Iti A e.g. Ine	oC : : Tariff Rule 85 that is in issue in cat ities Litigati; Co PINION AND ORDER . ; To ATTEa . OPINIO 0 - of these actions. 400 (J.P.ALL.	Po . . 3 .: : PER CURIAM. : Lr oadeniy Antitt: EAT Co ] . In support of their motion the me ! wp. 753, 154 (C
A This litigation consists of five actions nts rely almost exclusively on the fat i far to vs from	wins EY LN r sFforn Te HY > _ . « . $e Lr hEd in four different districta.l In each ac that overlapping and conflicting cass al le Filed dn: - | Pon it ta alleged tat the dnfendunt mire Jagatimng pre asserted. They shan rie : ; ht PART: Beane have viol: sedis ” lr iie oo . : TR N cob there 1a y: lines have violated federal tariff resd thet, th addition iw Lue ve nbing 41 i Get DrLo tl . so averehavel . a. ~ . PS . FREE CLds BS ELARALLAlations hy ‘overcharging for faves to do- tion, there are other preliminary basi consolidated
+ jestlc passengers who fly between two guestions common ta each action whit crdinated or 1	. 3 - ~ 3 N Qtr rr . BE . - . N . " Lee =~	) points in the United States for which ne ghould he decided by a single jude: © 0 gies tna
: single joint fave has been published by example, whether the CAT bas exci fe a df seo: : the airlines. Plaintiffs in each action juricdiction over this matter, whet od in orderCc : purport to represent a class of all passen- Rule 40(h) of the CALs rules is aw o rmination .: : gers who have been subject to such al- (jtion precedent to these suits, the x bre Mannal for |	. veri rare ha erng Maint 3 Pr . . . . : BREIL A: Lo leged overcharges. 1 laintiffs in the ac propriate period of limitations appl » Coan (197): ; tions pending in the Central District of plo to these actions and the availabifit, m vont vini cL alifornis . p) . dep cet Doom conbanms; California move the Panel for an order of punitive damages. - Cl ons, seh |
| [I transferring all actions to a single dis- Co . : SN: trict for coordinated ov consolidated pre- Defendants oppose the motion bofer ah ation
trial proceedings. We find that for the the Panel on the ground thal these = ! cnrdinatadconvenience of the parties and witnesses tions present insufficient conunen ww Lo ‘ draand the just and efficient conduct of the tions of fact to warrant transfer wins o im ptlitigation these purported class actions Section 1407. They avgae that thee JAN	> . : oe denver
. - we c Waeiim+ Allhongh Judges Wisdom and Lord were ol pursint to 28 (LA § HOT, an i Coa no or: winlile to attend the Panel hearing, they tional action.aves pending in the Senthors _ ER [A HYhave, with the consent of atl parties, par- District of Flacids, Donald To Pent ° : eh ef that: ticipated in this decision, Fhetern Aiding: oe, Civil Neti © J The roan: A Gn] CIV NOTL Prior te I fs vo ,	1 + oo 5 .! : ATE EEL
Lo y ne 1. At the time of the Panel hearing to con- of the Panel's decision, however. \ : — ne !: . NICS sider the motion to transfer the actions Wigrida district court eatopsd anv ‘ R N ona
SE or i in this litigation ton single district| disinissing that action. ’ SARE

Case MDL No. 121 D
. ocument 2 Filed 04/30/1
Po 5 Page3of4
“ Co: IN REPUBLIC A1TRAVELPARIEELITIGATOR 1249 : 3 .: Citeax860F.Sapp.pao(1h) | : 4 - :SR whether the airlines violated Cirenit has dosigmanted Jude Rov Me- | oo- rab pleghinconstructingthefaves Nicholsofthe Districtof Tdahoto«ilin ] ‘were, Sal ene and will not juvolve dis- {he Northern. Fustern and Cenfral Dis: : :Coe inv Cfcommon factssinceeach claim tricts of California and has aanigned to :Arp in : {on thepureliaseofseparateaiy- him,forallpurposts,theactionsinthane iROTROTIINFAa ets, invelving different roulings districts that nre a part of this liti- . !Ched States © different cities. Defendants gation. Thus, four of the five actions i SoGOT tne ee{hatcachclaimmustbeexam- in this litigation avealready ander the \©heenpub qarately to determine if certain supervision of a single judge. And boYnea Time whichmay renderTariffRulegh Judge ATeNichols will anuestionably be | :Se takecone J sieable ave present. In cssence, faced with problems relating to discov- Hae airlines i. ) : qasert{hat the question of liability ery, classaction determinations and oth- oF :velines invaloer Cas the question of damages in er pretrial molions already raized ov 7 P a«+ which cut] © oases will require individual proof likely tobe raised in the action pending i“nooririn and. 5 eachplaintiffandprospectiveclass in theWeslern DistrictofPennsylvania. i . :Sievlar rouline ober N : rransfer of the Pennsylvanian action to :copuldished Topye : haveconsistentlyheldthatthepos- Judge MeNichols forcoordinated or con- } BEetn ie wen pTates sel fon, osunder Bule 99 of the Federal Rules Ll time C CLE PILE ;he airlineswith Lo {antfactorfavorin transfer judicial timeand resourcesandwill pro- i }Posed (CAD ipo acor =< k EE motethe justandexpeditiousconductof i .Cie inTa aa il Coc.da InreTexas Gulf SulphurSe- the litigation. } :J : adye in Cities Litigation, 944 F.Supp. 1398, ER i ooLI i it (3.PM.L1972)5 In re Career Although movanis Wee that the | :: hatJaton the = oodemy Antitrust Litigation, 342 ¥. NorthernDistrictofCaliforniabeselect- |: Chesed nip Hie B PIC REEFRAYLipase Anditis ed asthe transferee district, we find Peoelietingda Soarto ug from a veading of the cous {hattue Codi istrielafCaliforniais tN hiv aloI. ; qnts filed in each of these actions thetrios!appropriatepp foi Hid A Co :hi hossetiono- Athoreisarealdangerofconflicting gation. There areLwo actions pending oo !pon Feetiminary bo posdeterminationsunlesstheseactions 1M that district andthey are more ad- ifin cael actionwh. +.congoliduted under Section 1407 for’ vanced than the others in the aress of APonsingejudgesi : rdinated or consolidated pretrial pro- discovery and pretrind. In addition, the |Lhe CAB hagoxelusin 1dings. In addition, it may be ncees- majorityofthedefendantairlinesnemed odDini matter, wheito ! ryforadiscoveryscheduletobeestab- 1Mtheotherfouyactionsavealreadypatv- :| Coats piles doaeo + hedinordettoprovideabasisforthe tiestotheactionspendingintheCentral 3 .hese sits, Whe on ¢ termination ofthe class action issue. District and they favor that district as}
| : Fimitationsappdi BETManualforComplexLitigation,Part thetransfereeforum. Furthermore,the yo	too oond the availalatic: Ph 1.40 (1973 xev. ed.). Since cach ctatistics of the Administrative Officefo © toncontainssimilarRule23classalles oftheUnitedgtates Courtsindicatethat: i ations,stichdiscoverywouldbecommon the civil docketealendar for the Central . -_cov the motion befor each action and could bestbe pursued District of Californian is cignificantly Codround that theseos © icoordinatedunderthesupervisionofa MorecurrentthanthatfortheNorthern !	icont commen Ee ngle judge. Furthermore, there ave District. In 1972 Annual peport of the . TLecon Lransfer EEE SLtariff practices common to cach of Director, Administrative Office of theon onrnethat thewe ! tog actions which will, it appears. in- United States Courts,Table C-10at A— |: i -olve discovery applicable to cach plain- AN o : .ERAN 38FUREUREGRL : 50sclaimand transfer of these actions 1 is therefore ordered Hat all actionscoding fn theSontlers rasingle distrietwill insurethat.dupli- alae cmon olty ers -~ i distric nm ; | on the attached Gehotile A De, and the 3Ve EvilCetinSorLdeenof thatdiscovery18avoided. gameherebyarc,transferredtotheCen- | ooca 10 the its ed©thereisavadditionalreasonfavoring tral DistrictofCaliforniaand,withthe {SC however, th : Solidationof{higparticularlitigation consent of {hat court, assigned to the x] ’. Aered nord soderSection1407. pursnantto28U.S. flonorable Bay MeNichols, gilting by :; r.§o02(D),theChictJudgeoftheNinth designation, for coordinated or consoli- |! : _ : t
: ' . |STee mee

i Page 4 of 4	Case MDL No. 121 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 g
| Ti) 360 FEDDRAL SUPPLEMENT : wien PE
om, dated pretrial proceedings pursusnt to ing in that district and listed on Sch OPINION AND a1	§ Res, - . . . . : : 1 ~CLT @BUS.CLS 1407 with the actions pend ule A, iBE - ign. . .
oo SCHEDULE A ho pit. hho le	, Lass oack $ on hehe
Eastern District of California : C1 fivemen in the citingTH. L. Proaps v. Hughes Air Corp, ct al. Civil Action Shs, San Antonio and El
) ] No. 82428 : 1 New Orleans, Touisian
a lvani ion federal courts iy Tos
| Western District of Pennsylvania i an The five actions aryDonald A. Klein v. American Airlines, Ine, et al. Civil Action i ooitionality of statitbog: No. 72-698 otproviding for the adm. CLT —. . vooann funds for a become
Central District of California Fhe citiog ln hi	[th } Potmse ches, Plaintiffy iy,
Ronald J. Kinsling, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Civil ‘Action {at move the Panel, presi:Inc, et al, No. 72-1045-EC PO § 1107, for an order
~ Ronald J. Kinsling, et al. v. Trans World Air. Civil Action i 7 actions to a single diglines, of al. | : No. 72-1217.-RC y imaled or consolidated py:. : : } Po dings, : .
B Northern District of California . The statutes in jssue requ .Greggar Sletteland v. United Airlines Civil Action : t from the salary of cach
X } - No. C-72-2120-SW } Fireman employer by the
: ) ; cributed to a pension fur
- : N a . - : : ; of contend that those coy
: Co 5 RA : mob refunded to the empl: Le 5 Kirpomereseater) : : : J ainates hig employment pjSS oo So © - valifying for pension bene
| oo NE. Co . : : . “el a prescribed numhay on;
Cy : oo Courts 62277. Chr or Tor any eon otheCo ; oe SAAN FAHD LLANA POSTE fit i USS ACLS wn SL - )EK # : . . ia YL By CL Chass acing, * H .CT AUTH LITIGATION, ort io 1s wie	‘ i constitutionality of statutes eslahli :
: Pio. 131, . ’ TTR — : y : :
: a. : and providing for administration of : Lo . Sot
ol Judicial Punel on Multidistrict Litigation, sion funds for policemen and fiver. : IW. Walker ot al Ce	= June 13, 1973, cities of Houston, Dallas, San Anton: © ! !
. : Paso and New Orleans, vould «© ; |
The Judicial pl , Multidistrict transferred to; a single district for Io "NorLhe Judicial Panel on Multidistric . i. ca . : Sa. . I dinated or consolidated protein pre- Billy Jack Caine: Litigation did not tansfer multidistrict . i . P oes : "y Jack Gaines, et al. S . Ings, where sach actions predonsis : eh al )	: elas actions, attack ng constitutionality bi : {oe :	: Ll ‘1 involved questions of law, md « : .
: of statutes establis ig and providing i ; I i ane : Wr	: soa . . : Lrangler w : MT SerVe cont ; =' for administention of pension funds for rans er ton | mw fren sel Lo : Bavmond ,| policemen and firemen in cities of Hous- ©f parties and witnesseu nt be : bi a Larquisz, et al.bon, Dallas, San Antonia, Fl Paso and Just and efficient conduct of th : oo, et al
Wew Orleans, for con dinated or consoli- tion. 28 US.C.A. §§ 1407, tinge ” iar MN. Gould, ctal. -diated pretrial proceclings, where such } oak - -
nebions predominantly invalved (questions BI I : Inclof Taw, and where transfer would nei- } win Sli	p Ppa rot: rly. r
ther zeros convenionds of parties and Before ALIERISD PATER : iy hn To Warner, gr,vinnie gay promote] just and efficient man, and 101) MINOR WT : eo of the Police fo	codpt af tho litizatiog. WARD WENIELD, Bow Fr chal. i rer a Ce ane :Metion to transfer fonied, SON, WILLIAM IL BECK! Hare‘ "a . it ars
Sevalo boo 111 up, 117 and S. LORD, ab an! STANL foPLC EE Supp, 1424. GEL, Judges pr the Paiel. :
a Co :
oo i