IN RE: Air Crash Near Providence, Rhode Island, on February 21, 1982

1:83-F-00556Jpml2 giu 2015

Testo completo

Case MDL No. 556 Document2 Filed 06/02/15 Page	1 of 3
DOCKET NO. 556 FULT
C BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION e.g pe’ IN RE AIR CRASH NEAR PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, ON FEBRUARY; 21, 1982FEET oe
*
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation consists of the two actions listed on the
attached Schedule A and pending in two federal districts as
follows: one action in the Southern District of New York and one
action in the Western District of Texas. Presently before the
Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by
DeHavilland Aircraft of-Canada, Ltd., (DeHavilland), a defendant in
each action, for transfer of the two actions to the District of
Rhode Island. Plaintiffs in the Texas action do not oppose
centralization, but they favor selection of the Western District of
Texas as transferee forum. Plaintiffs in the New York action and
another defendant in that action oppose transfer. If the Panel
nevertheless concludes that centralization is appropriate in this
docket, then the plaintiffs in the New York action favor selection
of the Southern District of New York as the transferee forum.
On the basis of the papers filed, the Panel finds that the
two actions involve common questions of fact and that
centralization of the actions under Section 1407 in the Southern
District of New York will best serve the convenience of the parties
C and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the	litigation. Both actions share numerous factual questions
concerning the cause or causes of a crash near Providence, Rhode
Island, of a DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft being operated
by Pilgrim Aviation and Airlines, Inc. Centralization under
Section 1407 is therefore necessary in order to prevent duplication
of discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
Movant favors selection of the District of Rhode Island as
transferee forum for this litigation because, inter alia, Rhode
Island is the situs of the crash and therefore witnesses and
records relating to the crash, the rescue efforts, and the
investigation of the crash are likely to be found there. While the
District of Rhode Island may be an appropriate forum for
centralized pretrial proceedings in this docket, we are extremely
reluctant to select a district in which no constituent action is
pending. See, €.9., In re Air Crash Disaster Near Papeete, Tahiti,
* Judge Robert H. Schnacke took no part in the decision of this
matter.
C 1/ The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the question	. of transfer of these actions under Section 1407 was submitted onthe briefs. Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).
Case MDL No. 556 Document2 Filed 06/02/15 ‘Page	2 of 3
- 2 -
EH
oo 397 F. Supp. 886, 887 (J.P.M.L. 1975). The Southern District of CNew York, on the other hand, where one of the actlons 1s already .
pending, is centrally located and easily accessible for the parties
and counsel involved in this docket, and 1s where relevant
discovery concerning pre-flight maintenance 1s likely to be
undertaken. We note that witnesses can still expect to be deposed
near where they reside. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
action listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in the Western
District of Texas be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the
Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Leonard B. Sand for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action listed on
Schedule A that is pending before him in that district.
FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. ci rreyChairman
®	No
Case MDL No. 556 “Document 2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 3
Schedule A
MDL-556_	—--_ In re Air Crash Near. Providence, Rhode Island, on
February 21, 1982 .
Western District of Texas
Thomas N. Prinster, et al. v. DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada,
Ltd., C.A. No. A-83-CA-058
Southern District of New York
Lyle W. Hogg, et al. v. DeHavilland Canada, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. Cv-83-2697

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.