IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Charlotte, North Carolina, on September 11, 1974

ry
A
. C MDL No. 202 Emde Filed 05/01/15 Page 1of4) ia ( _ %
fn BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL Ane
1 ON MULTID5 TaiAREL ONMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FILE CATION
® IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT CHARLOTTE, 1 R
NORTH CAROLINA, ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1974 I soccer 1 321975	I : VTRE A “ FEIT uo
in eine scsi CLERK LARDOPINION. AND, ORDER AE PAREL
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM *,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER,
JOSEPH S. LORD, IIT, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
On September 11, 1974, an Eastern Air Lines DC-9 jet
crashed into woods some 3.3 miles from Runway 36 at Douglas
Municipal Airport, Charlotte, North Carolina. The plane was
making an intermediate stop in its flight from Chicago, Illinois, oe
to Charleston, South Carolina. Seventy-two of the eighty-two
persons aboard the craft died as a result of the crash.
This litigation presently consists of fifteen actions
pending in four districts: ten in the District of South Caro-
: lina, two in the Western District of North Carolina; two-in
the Southern District of New York and one in the Eastern District
: of Virginia, Defendant Eastern moves the Panel for an order
transferring these actions to either the Western District of
North Carolina or the District of South Carolina for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings, while the plaintiff in one
of the actions pending in the Western District of North Carolina
a a me es Se Sh SER Si J Sa Ce A Cade SH SE SESE Sane CH Smad .
* Although Judge Wisdom was unable to attend the Panel hearing,
he has, with the consent of all particsmpitagipated~ in this decision. vn srmTON REQUIRED Ll
oe -—angferee court ¥ BL
® : Fre wv of thig ovdel	b . 4 wap gout.
- 1 SPITE	K,
|SURES IER
ve seul to © oo

i ~~
Case MDL No. 202 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2of4
t 1/
moves for transfer of the actions to that district. All
@® responding parties recognize the propriety of transfer under
Section 1407 but disagree over whether the Western District of
North Carolina or the District of South Carolina is the appropri-
ate transferee court. These actions plainly involve common
questions of fact and we find that their transfer to the Western
District of North Carolina for pretrial proceedings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407 will best serve the convenience of theparties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
2/
litigation.
Proponents of the District of South Carolina as the trans-
feree forum argue that transfer there is preferable since forty-
five of the passengers aboard the craft were residents of
South Carolina, whereas only two were residents of North Carolina.
@ 1l/ Five actions that were originally filed in Florida state~ court and later removed bydefendant Eastern to the Southern
District of Florida were included in the motions for transfer.
Prior to the Panel hearing, however, those actions were re-
manded to Florida state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).
~ Since the Panel is only authorized under 28 U.S.C. §1407
to transfer actions that are pending in federal districts,
we no longer have jurisdiction over the Florida actions.
In addition, two actions filed in the District of South
Carolina were also included in the motions for transfer but
have since been dismissed. Thus, the question of their
transfer under Section 1407 has become moot.
2/ Since the Panel hearing, defendant Eastern and plaintiff	in the
action entitled- Alma: Ly Singletony~ eto yo.» Eastern Airlines,Inc., D. South Carolina, Civil Action No. I3Z5, have wgroct
to a stipulation whereby Eastern has admitted its liability
for actual damages in exchange for plaintiff's waiving any
claim to punitive damages. Consequently, the action will only
be tried on the issue of damages. Since the common
questions of fact in air disaster litigation normally relate
to the issue of liability, transfer of the Singleton action
under Section 1407 is inappropriate. Accordingly, it is not
included	in the transfer we are herewith ordering.

\ Case MDL No. 202 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 4
! - 3 -
® In addition, they urge the District of South Carolina because
the majority of the actions are already pending in that district.
Because the federal districts being considered for the
transferee forum for this litigation are in proximity to each other,
the selection of either one will not substantially inconvenience
any of the parties. On batance, we are persuaded that the Western
District of North Carolina is the more appropriate choice. Since
the crash occurred within that district, most of the eyewitnesses
as well as the air traffic controllers	who were issuing instruc-
tions to the aircraft are located there. Moreover, the tape
recordings of the communications between the aircraft and the
controllers and the documents relating to the flight plan, route and
@® approach path of the aircraft are in the Charlotte Tower at ooDouglas Municipal Airport. Thus, North Carolina will be
the focal point for discovery on the issue of liability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the
following Schedule A and pending in districts other than the
: Western District of North Carolina be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Western District of. North Carolina and, :
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
James B. McMillan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions pending
in that district and listed on schedule A. So

. Case MDL No. 202 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 4
g
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 202
([ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK :
Regina R. Ladd, etc. v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-4635
Melvin Sanders, Jr., etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al. No. 74-5458
- EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA So : :
Stephen C. Swain, etc. v. Eastern BE - civil Action .
Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-463-N
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mrs. Betty Stamey Shelley, etc. Vv. Civil Action
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. : SEE No. C74~260
Mrs. Lydia Burk Norem v. Eastern Cu Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. : No. C75-31
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA }
Sam H. Brummer, etc. v. Eastern Civil Action
® Air Lines, Inc. : No. 74-1270Caroline B. Burnham v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-1572
Robert M. Burnham v. Eastern oo Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. . : No. 74-1477
Patricia N. Hendrix v. Eastern is - Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-1576
Royal F. Hendrix, III v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. S- No. 74-1462
Scott R. Johnson, etc. v. Eastern a Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-1479
Linda Gail Schulze v. Eastern Civil Action |
Air Lines, Inc. . Co . .. No. 74-1640
Jean J. McFall, etc. v. Eastern. FI Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 75-12
James L. Schulze, Jr. v. Eastern Civil Action
Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-1641