IN RE: Oil Spill by the "Amoco Cadiz" Off the Coast of France on March 16, 1978

: Case MDL No. 376 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 14 |
JUDICIAL PANE » —
FILED y B
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL JUN -g 1979 S44 CL
MULTIDISTRIOS LITIGATION CERCA 9. Hoiaso Poe EEPANEL |
IN RE OIL SPILL BY THE "AMOCO CADIZ" ) |
OFF THE COAST OF FRANCE ON ) DOCKET NO. 376
MARCH 16, 1978 ) :
OPINION AND ORDER Co R
BEFORE MURRAY I. GURFEIN, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWIN A. ROBSON, Ra :
STANLEY A. WEIGEL,* ANDREW A. CAFFREY, ROY W. HARPER, AND
CHARLES R. WEINER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.
PER CURIAM
I. BACKGROUND |
This litigation consists of six actions pending in }
three districts: three actions in the Southern District NB B
of New York, two actions in the Eastern District of Virginia,
and one action in the Northern District of Illinois. oo
On March 16, 1978, the tanker Amoco Cadiz, while under - |
tow after having lost both an anchor and its hydraulic steering .h
mechanism, went aground on rocks off the northwest coast
of France. In rough water, the disabled ship broke apart
on the rocks and disgorged its cargo of approximately 220,000 E . Ea
tons of crude oil, causing extensive environmental and economic |
loss. All actions in this litigation relate to this sea
disaster. :
A. The Northern District of Illinois Action oo
The action in the Northern District of Illinois was
brought in admiralty for exoneration from or limitation
F¥ Judge Weigel took no part in the decision of this
matter.
FPI—MAR——3.27.79-6M-1781 :

© Case MDLNo.376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 20f14
-2- SE
1 RE
2 | of liability by Standard 0il Company (Indiana) (herein
3 "Standard"	); Amoco Transport Company (herein "Transport"), So
4 the Liberian corporation that owned the Amoco Cadiz; Amoco
International 0il Company (herein "International"	), a Standard
> subsidiary that is engaged in international oil operations so Lo
6 and is the parent of Transport; and Claude Phillips (herein Lo : i
7 "Phillips"), the director of International's marine operations. SL
8 © Plaintiffs in the Illinois action (herein the "Amoco parties")
9 relied on 46 U.S.C. §183 et seqg., provisions limiting a
10 vessel owner or charterer's liability for loss or damage,
11 arising without the privity or knowledge of the owner or | k
charterer, to the value of the interest of the owner or a
=. charterer in the vessel and the vessel's freight. In the
13 complaint, the Amoco parties claimed that the Amoco Cadiz : oo
14 was a total loss and that their remaining financial interest
15 in the ship amounted to $795,000 in charter fees owed to
6 Transport by Royal Dutch Shell, Ltd. (herein "Shell") and N
17 Shell subsidiaries, companies to which the Amoco Cadiz was
8 } under charter at the time of the shipwreck. : o Co
9 ~ The Amoco parties claimed that, pursuant to the | :
International Convention on Civil Liability for 0il Pollution
© Damage, a multilateral treaty to which France is a }
1 signatory, actions for damages from marine oil pollution
2 may be brought only in the courts of countries that either
3 suffered pollution damage	or took steps to prevent the damage. |a Accordingly, the Amoco parties asked the Illinois court
5 to dismiss any claims that may be filed against them by |. FPI—MAR-—3.27.79.6M.1781

. . Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	3 of 14
. -3=
1
® 2 0il pollution claimants and to direct those claimants to
3 file their claims in the Tribunal of Brest, France, a French
4 court in which Transport has already deposited approximately
$16,750,000 for payment of claims. |
> The Amoco parties in the Illinois action did not admit |
6 responsibility for the shipwreck. Rather, they alleged |7 that the shipwreck was due to the perils of the sea and |
8 of navigation, or to the fault of others for whom plaintiffs |
9 were not responsible, and they sought a judicial determination
10 to that effect. -
11 As further relief, the Amoco parties sought an order :
1) directing any persons asserting claims, with respect :
®. to which the Amoco parties were seeking exoneration from3 or limitation of liability, to file those claims with the
14 court in the Northern District of Illinois: and 2) enjoining
15 the prosecution or commencement elsewhere of any proceedings
16 against the Amoco parties arising out of the wreck of the a
17 Amoco Cadiz. The Honorable Frank J. McGarr issued an order |18 granting these two requests on September 19, 1978. Subsequently,
19 the Republic of France, a claimant in the Illinois proceedings,
filed a motion seeking to vacate and/or modify Judge McGarr's
20 order as it applies to Standard, International and Phillips.
21 France recognized the limitation on liability to which the
22 © owner or charterer of a vessel is entitled, but asserted
23 that only Transport was entitled to that statutory protection.
Cd On April 17, 1979, Judge McGarr issued an order dismissing
25 | |	| FPI=MAR—=3.27.79.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	4 of 14 . .
| a
1
2 : the complaint in the Illinois action as to Standard, Inter- ®3 national and Phillips; and he directed the plaintiffs to
4 submit a draft order modifying the September 19, 1978 order
enjoining suits against the three dismissed parties. |
° ~ Also, in November, 1978, the Amoco parties filed a counter- |	)
6 claim and third-party claim against claimant France for |	; |
7 indemnification, contribution and damages resulting from
8 the French authorities’ alleged mishandling of the oil cleanup	. : : |
9 and failure to assist the Amoco Cadiz.
10 B. The Southern District of New York Actions |
11 The first action in the Southern District of llew York
was brought by the Republic of France against International |
12 and Phillips (herein "the France action"). France seeks |
13 300 million dollars in damages to compensate her for her o
14 losses and clean-up costs as a result of the Amoco Cadiz |
15 oil spill. France claims that, although the ship was under |
16 charter, the ship's captain and crew were in defendants’ :
17 employ and their control. France claims that the Amoco |
18 | Cadiz captain, at the defendants’ direction, 1) negligently
19 delayed determining the location of salvage tugs and delayed
secking assistance; and 2) after ultimately deciding to
20 secure the towing assistance of the tug Pacific, negligently
21 delayed implementation of the Pacific's assistance and failed
22 to exercise cooperation with the Pacific while bickering
23 over the terms and conditions of the Pacific's services. |
24 Defendants are also accused of negligence in 1) failing C25 to issue proper instructions regarding the ship's hydraulic
systems; 2) failing to man the Amoco Cadiz with competent

: oe Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	5 of 14
1 -5=
1
eo. engineers and watch-keeping deck officers; and 3) operating -
3 : an unseaworthy vessel. Proceedings in this action were
4 stayed pursuant to Judge McGarr's September 19, 1978 order B
in the Northern District of Illinois.
> The second action in the Southern District of New York .
6 (herein "the Conseil General New York action") was brought
7 against the Amoco parties; Shell and the Shell subsidiaries |
8 to whom the Amoco Cadiz was under charter; Astilleros Espanoles)
9 S.A. (herein "Astilleros"), the Spanish company that built
10 the Amoco Cadiz in Cadiz, Spain; and Bugsier Reedarei und :
11 Bergungs A.G. (herein "Bugsier"), the German company that
owns the Pacific. Plaintiffs in this action, who seek damages
2 totaling almost 375 million dollars, are Conseil General
C2 des cltes du Nord, the government of the French Department |
14 of ¢8tes du Nord; certain individual towns and municipalities :
15 within the Department of c3tes du Nord and the Department E
16 of Le Finistere; certain unions, trade associations and | 3
17 hotels; a French environmental society; and a French ornitho-
18 logical society. Generally, the Amoco parties, Shell and oe
19 the Shell subsidiaries are accused of substantially the :
same negligent conduct as that charged against International .
20 and Phillips in the France action in New York; liability
21 against Astilleros is sought under theories of negligence -
22 in the design, testing and construction of the Amoco Cadiz -
23 | and her steering system, breach of warranties of merchantability,
C and strict liability; and recovery against Bugsier is sought25
FPI—NAR-—3.27.79.6M-1781

Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	6 of 14 : :
) -6-
1
2 on the grounds of failure to exercise proper care, cooperation
3 and due diligence with respect to the salvage attempts rendered
4 by the tug Pacific, and on the further ground of unseaworthiness
of the Pacific and its equipment. Proceedings against the
° Amoco parties were stayed. in this action pursuant to Judge
© McGarr's September 19, 1978 order. In January, 1979, Astilleros
7 filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it on grounds
8 of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of service
9 of process, and forum non conveniens.
10 The third New York action (herein "the class action")
11 was brought against Astilleros as a class action seeking
12 damages in excess of one billion dollars. Plaintiffs are
owners and operators of hotels, restaurants, fishing boats,
13 oyster beds and ferry boats, and an association charged
14 under French law with the exclusive duty and responsibility
15 to protect and enforce the moral and material rights of
16° families. These plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves
17 and others similarly situated in the French Departments
18 of cBtes du Nord and Le Finistere. Generally, recovery
19 against Astilleros is sought under the same theories propounded
against Astilleros in the Conseil General New York action.
20 In February, 1979, Astilleros fileda motion to dismiss
21 the claims against it on grounds of lack of personal Jjuris-
22 diction, insufficiency of service of process, and forum
23 non conveniens. on :
24 : oe .
25 :
FPI-MAR—3.27.78.6M.1781

. . Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	7 of 14
| | -7-
@2 C. The Eastern District of Virginia Actions
3 The complaints in both the Virginia actions are brought
4 against Bugsier and charge, generally, that Bugsier and
its employees failed to exercise proper care and seamanship
° with respect to the Pacific's salvage efforts, and that
6 the Pacific was unseaworthy. Plaintiffs in one action (herein
7 "the Amoco action") are Transport and International. These
8 plaintiffs seek 50 million dollars in damages for the loss
9 of the ship and contribution and/or indemnity from Bugsier
10 | for any amounts awarded to claimants against International
11 and Transport in other actions. Plaintiffs in the second
Virginia action (herein "the Conseil General Virginia action")
®. are substantially the same as the plaintiffs in the Conseil	3 General New York action. As in the Conseil General New |
14 York action, these plaintiffs seek damages of almost 375
15 million dollars.
16 Bugsier has filed a motion to dismiss the Conseil General:
17 Virginia action on grounds of forum non conveniens, seeking
18 to require the French claimants to return to their home
19 forum in France. Bugsier has also filed a motion to dismiss
based on forum non conveniens in the Amoco action in Virginia
20 and, additionally, seeks an order to require the plaintiffs
21 in the Amoco action to arbitrate this dispute in London |
22 pursuant to the terms ofa salvage agreement entered into
23 between the owners of the Amoco Cadiz and the Pacific.
@®
25
FPI—MAR-—3.27.79-6M.1781

Case MDL No. 376 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 8 of 14 : :
)
-8=
1
2 D. The Illinois State Court Actions :
3 In addition to the federal actions, four class actions
4 have been filed in Illinois state courts by various parties
who are also named plaintiffs in the New York class action.
> Shell is a defendant in three of these actions and the Amoco
6 parties are defendants in all four. Three of the four actions
7 were originally removed to the Northern District	of Illinois
8 and assigned to Judge McGarr. In December, 1978, Judge
9 McGarr remanded those three actions to Illinois state courts
10 for want of federal jurisdiction. ‘As in the federal actions,
11 recovery in the four state actions is sought under theories
of negligence.
12
E. Proceedings Before the Panel
13 The Amoco parties move the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14 §1407 to centralize the federal actions in the Northern
15 District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
16 proceedings. Plaintiffs in the New York and Virginia Conseil
17 General actions support centralization under Section 1407,
18 and they leave the choice of the transferee forum to the
19 Panel. France, Astilleros and Bugsier oppose transfer.
Plaintiffs in the New York class action oppose inclusion
20 of the Illinois action in centralized pretrial proceedings,
21 but do not oppose centralization of the Virginia and New
22 - York actions in the Southern District of New York.
23 BE OE PEPE . :
24
25
FPI-MAR—3.27.78.6M-1781

. : Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	9 of 14
3
—9-
|
@ IT. HOLDING AND REASONING
3 We find that the six actions in this litigation raise
4 common questions of fact and that transfer under Section
5 1407 of the New York and Virginia actions to the Northern
District of Illinois will best serve the convenience of
° the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
7 conduct of the litigation.
8 France argues that the questions of fact shared by
°S these actions are not sufficiently numerous or complex,
10 and that the accompanying discovery will not be time consuming
11 enough, to warrant transfer. France also asserts that many
12 distinct factual questions exist because of the presence
C of different legal theories in each action. France suggests :	that any relevant discovery already conducted in the Northern
14 District of Illinois can be made available to the parties
15 in other actions and that voluntary cooperation among the
16 parties, counsel and courts is a preferred alternative to oo
17 transfer under Section 1407. h
18 Astilleros, in opposing centralization, argues that
19 discovery in the actions to which it is a party will be co
distinct from that of the other parties and actions because
2° the discovery from Astilleros will deal with the design
21 and construction of the Amoco Cadiz	in Spain, and not with
22 events off the coast of France. Finally France, Astilleros
23 and Bugsier all urge that the pendency of motions to dismiss
® in the Virginia and New York actions should prompt the Panel25
FPI—MAR~—3-27-78.6M.1781 |

Case MDL No. 376 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 10 of 14 - :
3 -10-
1
2 to defer any transfer decision at the present time or to
3 exclude from transfer the claims which are subject to the
a motions	to dismiss.
, We find these arguments unpersuasive. France's assertion
that these actions do not involve complex common questions
© of fact and that the accompanying discovery will not be
7 time consuming is belied 1) by France's own listing in the
8 Illinois action of possible witnesses, including the Italian
9 officers and crew of the Amoco Cadiz, Spanish officers and
10 employees of Astilleros, German officers and employees of
11 Bugsier, officers and employees of the Amoco parties, and
12 assorted French officials, businessmen and other entities;
and 2) by the fact that the Amoco parties, in response to
13 similar document requests from parties in various actions
14 now before the Panel, have already produced over 60,000
15 documents to some of the parties and have made available
16 to claimants additional hundreds of thousands of documents
17 for inspection and copying.
18 The actions in this litigation clearly involve common
19 questions of fact, including questions of fault concerning
20 the steering breakdown; questions of fault with respect
to the activities on ship, shore and tug during the hours
21 from the breakdown until the grounding; questions of the
22 causes and amount of damage by pollution; and questions
23 concerning French national and local governments’ responsibility
24 in aggravating or failing to mitigate damages. The presence
25
: FPI~MAR—3.27.78.6M.17a1

. - Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 11 of 14
-11-
,
®2 of differing legal theories in some of the actions does
3 not negate the existence of common questions of fact regarding
4 the shipwreck and the attendant circumstances. See In re
5 Air Crash Disaster in the Ionian Sea on September 8, 1974,
438 F. Supp. 932, 934 (J.P.M.L. 1977). Centralization under
© Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to prevent duplication
7 of discovery and eliminate the possibility of conflicting
8 pretrial rulings concerning the common factual questions. |
9 The transferee judge, of course, has the authority to schedule
10 any pretrial proceedings that are unique to particular parties,
11 claims or actions to proceed concurrently with the common
12 pretrial proceedings, thereby permitting the litigation
C to proceed expeditiously in all areas. See In re Multi-PieceRim Products Liability Litigation, 464 F. Supp. 969, 974
14 (J.P.M.L. 1979). Moreover, the transferee judge has power
15 to provide that no party need participate in pretrial proceeding
16 unrelated to that party's interests. See, e.g., Parts I
17 & II, §§2.31, Manual for Complex Litigation (rev. ed. 1977). .
18 While voluntary coordination of discovery efforts among ni
19 parties and their counsel is always commendable, transfer
20 of these actions to a single district under Section 1407 "
will ensure the streamlining of discovery and all other Co
21 pretrial proceedings as well. See In re Gas Meter Antitrust
22 © Litigation, 464 F. Supp. 391, 393 (J.P.M.L. 1979). |
23 We see no reason to delay transfer in this litigation
® because of the pendency of motions to dismiss in certain
25 of the constituent actions. These motions can be presented
i
FPI=MAR—3-27.75.6M.178)

Case MDL No. 376 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 12 of 14 : .
) -12-
1
2 to and decided by the transferee judge following transfer.
3 See In re Commonwealth 0il/Tesoro Petroleum Securities
a Litigation, 458 F. Supp. 225, 230 (J.P.M.L. 1978).
5 Some parties favor selection of the Southern District
of New York as the transferee forum for this litigation
© because: 1) that district is closer to the location of the
7 shipwreck and is more accessible to the foreign parties
8 in this litigation than any other American forum; 2) records
9 of the American Bureau of Shipping relating to the design,
10 manufacture, maintenance and operation of the Amoco Cadiz,
11 and employees of the Bureau who inspected the Amoco Cadiz,
12 are located in New York City; and 3) the Southern District
of New York is relatively close to Washington, D.C., where
13 documents relating to the federal investigation of the Amoco
14 Cadiz disaster are located. |
15 On balance, however, we are persuaded that the Northern
16 District of Illinois is the appropriate transferee forum
17 for this litigation. Many documents and witnesses are located
18 at Standard, International and Transport offices in Chicago
19 in that district. Furthermore, the familiarity which Judge
20 McGarr has developed with this litigation as a result of
the pretrial proceedings that have already been conducted
21 in the Northern District of Illinois weighs significantly
22 in favor of that district as the transferee forum. See
23 In re Griseofulvin Antitrust Litigation, 395 F. Supp. 1402,
24 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1975). Additionally, the related actions
25 that are pending in the Illinois state courts can be coordinated |
FPI-MAR—3.27.79.6M.1781

. - Case MDL No. 376 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 13 of 14
1 -13-
1
@. with the federal proceedings there. The possibility of
3 promoting this state/federal coordination is another factor
4 favoring the selection of the Northern District of Illinois
5 as the transferee forum. See In re Bomb Disaster at Roseville,
California, on April 28, 1973, 399 F. Supp. 1400, 1403 (J.P.M.L.
© 1975). We note also that witnesses can still expect to
7 be deposed near where they reside. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8 45(d) (2).
9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
10 §1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and |
11 pending in districts other than the Northern District of |
12 Illinois be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the |Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that
C court, assigned to the Honorable Frank J. McGarr for coordinated
14 or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action listed
15 on Schedule A and pending in that district.
16
17 :
18
19
20
21
22
23 |
4 FPI—MAR—3.27.78.6M.1751
I

s . Case MDL No. 376 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 14 of 14
1
® DOCKET NO. 376	2 Schedule A
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Civil Action No.
4 - -
In the Matter of the Complaint of Amoco 78C-~3693
5 Transport Company, Standard Oil Company
(Indiana), Amoco International Oil
6 Company and Claude Phillips, for
Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability
7
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
8 .
Republic of France v. Amoco International 78 Civ. 4313
9 Oil Company, et al. :
10 Conseil Genéral Des C8tes Du Nord, 78 Civ. 4354
et al. ve. Standard Oil Company (Indiana),
11 et al.
12 Bretagne-Angleterre~Irlande, S.A., et al. 78 Civ. 4945
C v. Astilleros Espanoles, S.A.EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA :
14 )
Conseil Genéral Des CS8tes Du Nord, et al. 79-51-N
15 V. Bugsier Reederei Und Bergungs, A.G.
16 Amoco Transport Company, et al. Vv. 79-6=N
. Bugsier Reederei Und Bergungs, A.G.	1 l
18
19
20
21
22
23
25