IN RE: Newark, New Jersey, Texaco Explosion on January 7, 1983

Case MDL No. 618 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	1 of 3 FO
: SoDIAL PARLE Si
si TENS RICT LARSFILED
C GY 1 138kpT Fide ain
. PATRICIA	D, Basis
: CLERK BF THE PrtDOCKET NO. 618 -
= BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, TEXACO EXPLOSION ON JANUARY 7, 1983
TRANSFER ORDER*#*
This litigation consists of five actions pending in two federal
districts: three actions in the District of Hew Jersey and two
actions in the Northern District of New York.=— Before the Panel 1s a
motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, by defendant Consoiidated Rall
Corporation (Conrail) to centraiize the actions in the District of New
Jersey for coordinated or consoiidated pretrial proceedings. One New
Jersey piaintiff joins in Conrall's motion, and no party has opposed
the motion.
On the basis of the papers fiiea,2’ the Panel finds that these
actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization under
28 U.S.C. §i407 wili best serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the iiti-
gation. These actions share numerous factual questions arising from
C the January 7, 1983 explosion on property owned by Texaco, Inc.	adjacent to facilities owned by Conrail in Newark, New Jersey. As a
= result	of the explosion several persons; including some Conrali
employees, were injured and property owned and being transported by
Conrail was damaged. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus
necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the District of New Jersey is the appro-
priate transferee forum for this litigation. We note that the
explosion occurred in New Jersey and that a majority of the witnesses
resides there.
* Judges Andrew A. Caffrey, Fred Daugherty and S. Hugh Diilin
recused themselves and took no part in the decision of this matter.
i/ The original motion 1nciuded one action which was pending in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and subsequentiy has been trans-
ferred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §i404(a), to the District of New Jersey.
C 2/ The parties waived orali 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).

Case MDL No. 618 Document 2,, Filed 06/01/15 Page	2 of 3 i .
: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in the Northe
District of New York be, and the same hereby are, transferred to ar)District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to the Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise for coordinated og consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district
and listed on Schedule A.
- FOR THE PANEL:
feos VoL.	Robert H. Schnacke
Acting Chairman

Case MDL No. 618 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 3
® SCHEDULE A
MDL-618 -- In re Newark, New Jersey, Texaco Explosion on January 7,
_ 1983 :
Northern District of New York
Donald McCool v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, C.A. No.
BLE-CV-5891
Robert Travis v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, C.A. No.
BL-CV-720
District of New Jersey
Alan Peterson v. Consolidated Rall Corporation, et al.,
C.A. Oe -
Robert M. Centano, et al. v. Consolidated Rall
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. BL-3388(L)
Peter F. O'Donnell, et al. v. Consolidated Rail
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 84-3845