IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans (Moisant Field). Louisiana, on March 20, 1969

Case MDL No. 64 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
LT cop ALPANTLEN SETS, Cel TRICT LITIGATION . CL Cn Co
oo THE JUDICIAL PANEL AUG 25 {97] | oo ION oo 2 : Co
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATIGN 7°: OL ARD ( -
: LERK GF THE PANEL N\ EN Co BN
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT NEW ORLEANS ) QP |(MOISANT FIELD), LOUISIANA ON MARCH 20, ) DOCKET NO. 64 : oe
1969 )
OPINION AND ORDER SA ERATE RE
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM*, SEE
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH soe
S. LORD, III*, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL ’ oo
PER CURIAM
This multidistrict air disaster litigation is being CT
considered for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1407 pursuant to a oo Co
show cause order entered on December 16, 1870. A hearing . :
was first set for January 22, 1971, in San Francisco,
california but was later vacated at the request of counsel oo
for all parties. :
The hearing was rescheduled for February 26, 1971, in
Washington,	D.C. but counsel for the plaintiffs again moved Co |
to vacate the hearing "on the ground that most of the ~ : so
litigation involved in this proceeding is now in the process oo oo
of being settled." The defendant, Avion Airways, Inc., sup-
ported the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the February hearing.
Once again the hearing was vacated and counsel for the — N
plaintiffs were directed to file a report with the Panel by co . a
* Judges John Minor Wisdom and Joseph S. Lord, III, wer?
unable to attend the hearing in this matter but, with the .
consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 64 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 5
°o Sa
April 1, 1971, indicating the status of all actions involved |
in this multidistrict litigation.
On March 16, 1971, plaintiffs filed their status
report which revealed that none of the cases had been settled
and dismissed although the parties were said to have
i agreed to settle most of the cases "subject to agreement on |
: the drafting of satisfactory closing papers." This matter
was again reset for hearing on July 30, 1971, and once again
the plaintiffs moved to vacate the hearing, this time on the
ground "that some of the cases in this proceeding are in the
process of being settled." This motion was denied and the
matter was heard in Denver, Colorado on July 30, 1971.
® Counsel representing the plaintiffs opposes transfer
on the ground that all but four or five of the passenger-
plaintiff claims are in the process of being settled and
that the remaining litigation will undoubtedly take place
in the Western District of Tennessee or in Tennessee State
Courts. Counsel argues that the fact that the interpleader
action filed by the insurance carrier is pending in the
Southern District of Texas is not particularly relevant due
to the fact that that action only involves the interpretation
and effect of the insurance policy and does not require
inquiry into the cause of the crash. Actions on behalf of
all passenger-plaintiffs were also filed in the Southern
PS District of Texas for "protective purposes" in the

Case MDL No. 64 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
o -3- |
event that personal jurisdiction over the defendants cannot
be obtained under the Tennessee long-arm statute. Counsel
contends that transfer of these cases is "not necessary"
| due to the unlikelihood that any further proceedings will
be required in them. Since the majority of the plaintiffs
are represented by specialized counsel from New York, it is
asserted that duplications and overlapping discovery can be
readily avoided without the need for transfer under section
1407. The defendants basically share the view expressed
by the plaintiffs.
The thrust of this argument is that this litigation
can be adequately controlled without transfer under section
® 1407 although none of the parties have shown any reason
why any of them would be inconvenienced in any way by
transfer under section 1407. The parties concede that with
the possible exception of the interpleader action, all
actions share common questions of fact relating to the cause
of the crash. The parties seem to agree that there will
have to be a trial of ceetain	of these actions since the
insurance coverage is not sufficient to cover the claims of
all passenger-plaintiffs and Tt is probable that the trial
will take place in the Western District of
I/ Itwould seem that even the interpleader action would
involve some development of the facts relating to the cause
of the crash, Co
Q

Case MDL No. 64 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 5
® “tT
Tennessee.2’/ We simply can find no basis for the contention
that this litigation would proceed more expeditiously, more
economically, and more efficiently with these cases scattered
among the federal and state courts in Tennessee and Texas.
This litigation has already been pending for more than a year
and a half and virtually no discovery has taken place.
Transfer of these cases has been delayed at the insistence
of the plaintiffs for more than six months on the
ground that these cases were being settled. It
seems apparent that this litigation is not progressing as
rapidly as it should be. The control which can be exercised
by a single transferee judge should help to remedy this
® situation.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions on the
attached Schedule A now pending in the Southern District
of Texas be and the same hereby are transferred to the
Western District of Tennessee and with the consent of that
Court are hereby assigned to the Honorable Robert M. McRae,
Jr., for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
2/ All parties agree that if there is to be a transfer
under section 1407, the Western District of Tennessee is
C the most appropriate transferee district.

Case MDL No. 64 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
" DOCKET NO. 64 SCHEDULE A
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSER
Mary I. Cates, et al. v. United States Civil Action
: of America No. C~70-445
Lois L. Tennyson, et al. v. United States Civil iction
of America No. C-7.-1&
Anne C. Jackson, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. C=71-1¢
_ Addile Stovall Martin, et al. v. United Civil Lction
States of America No. C-71-28
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Van W. Walton v. Avion Airways, Inc. et al. Civil Action
No. 70=~a—~-z47
Anne C. Jackson, et al. v. Avion Airways, Civil acuion
_ Inc., et al. No. 70-H-246
@ Lois E. Tennyson, et al. v. Avion Airways Civil Acticn
Inc., et al. No. 706-5-245
Addile W. Stovall, etc. v. Avion Airways, Civil Action
Mary I. Cates, et al. v. Avion Airways, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 70-H-23G
The Orion Insurance Co., Ltd., etc. v. Civil Action
Martha G. Baber, etc., et al. No. 70=d-947