IN RE: Air Crash Disaster Near Van Cleve, Mississippi, on August 13, 1977

TTSTTI TI TTT Te TTT mmm lem mim }
Case MDL No.-407 Document 2 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 7 |
| FOCAL PANEL ON Ia/p Tae	MULTIBISTRICT LITIGATION 04% EERE
FILED | ee
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL : Ca : Co Co
ON MAR 12 1330 oo
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION vg E |
PATRICIA D. HOV EA Co	Po . Shon . 1 X
IN RE AIR CRASH NEAR VAN CLEVE, ) DOCKET SERK®F THE PAREL | |
MISSISSIPPI, ON AUGUST 13, 1977 ) :
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ANDREW A. CAFFREY, ACTING CHAIRMAN, ROY W. HARPER, ) Ce n
CHARLES R. WEINER, EDWARD S. NORTHROP, AND ROBERT H.
SCHNACKE, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. :
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of nine actions, pending -
in a total of four federal districts: three in the Southern Lo oo .
District of Mississippi, and two each in the Northern District SE Co
of Oklahoma, the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern Co Sn
District of Texas. oo
On August 13, 1977, a Beech Queenair aircraft was i :
on a flight from Biloxi, Mississippi, to a destination :
in Alabama. On board the aircraft were a pilot, a co-pilot EE
and a single passenger. During the course of the flight, -
the left engine of the aircraft allegedly failed, causing
an in-flight fire to occur in and around the engine. This : So }
fire allegedly caused the left wing of the aircraft to
fall off, and the aircraft crashed near Van Cleve, Mississippi.
Each of the occupants of the aircraft died as a result
of this disaster.
Plaintiffs in each of the actions before the Panel .
are the personal representatives or relatives of the three ;
decedents. Relatives of the passenger and the personal
FPI—MAR—3.27.79-6M-1781

© Case MDLN0.407 Document? Filed 05/20/15 Page	2 of 7
—-2- . Co
representative and/or relatives of the co-pilot have each EE
commenced an action in each of the districts in which the N
actions before the Panel are pending; the ninth action | :
was commenced by a personal representative of the pilot.
Beech Aircraft Corporation (Beech), the manufacturer of |
the aircraft, is a defendant in most of the actions before - :
the Panel. Other parties named as defendants in one or
more of these actions include numerous companies that parti-
cipated in a major overhaul of the left engine of the aircraft,
which was performed in April, 1976 in Tulsa, Oklahoma; oo
the corporation that manufactured the aircraft's left engine; > Co
and the individual who owned the aircraft at the time of BE
the crash. Plaintiffs seek to recover against these defendants |
on theories of, inter alia, strict liability and negligence. |
Each of the actions before the Panel was filed in 3
1979 and minimal or no discovery has yet been accomplished
in the actions.
Because these actions appeared to share questions :
of fact, the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, originally
issued orders to show cause why the actions should not .
be transferred to a single district for coordinated or |
consolidated pretrial proceedings. See Rule 8(a), R.P.J.P.M.L.
78 F.R.D. 561, 566-67 (1978). Subsequently, an |
individual who is either a plaintiff or a co-plaintiff
in an action pending in each of the four districts involved
in this litigation moved the Panel to centralize all actions
FPI-MAR——3.27.79.6M.17 81 ’

Case MDL No. 407 Document2 Filed 05/20/15 Page	3 of 7
-3=
@® 2 in the Southern District of Mississippi. Two defendants
3 oppose transfer; alternatively, these defendants urge centrali-
4 zation in, respectively, the Northern District of Oklahoma
5 or the Northern District of Texas.+/ All other responding
parties favor centralization, and support either the Northern
© District of Oklahoma or the Southern District of Mississippi
7 as the transferee district.
8 We find that these actions involve common questions
9 of fact and that transfer of the actions pending in districts
10 other than the Northern District of Oklahoma to that district
11 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under
12 Section 1407 with the actions pending there will serve
® the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote+ the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
14 The opponents of transfer concede that these actions
15 share questions of fact concerning the cause or causes
16 of the crash. The thrust of opponents' argument is that
17 although nine actions are before the Panel, these actions
18 were commenced by only three sets of plaintiffs, and that
19 voluntary cooperation among the parties and courts involved
20 in this litigation is a viable and preferable alternative
to Section 1407 transfer.
21 We do not find this argument persuasive. While voluntary
22 coordination of pretrial efforts is always commendable,
23 transfer of these actions to a single district under Section
@ 24 1407 will ensure the streamlining of discovery and all
25 —_—
1l/ This defendant has not offered any arguments in support
of centralization in the Northern District of Texas.

Case MDL No. 407 Document 2 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 7
-4-
1
2 other pretrial proceedings. See In re Gas Meter Antitrust
3 Litigation, 464 F.Supp. 391, 393 (J.P.M.L. 1979). The
4 transferee judge, of course, will have the flexibility
5 and overall perspective of this litigation to design a
6 pretrial program that will accommodate the needs of each
party for any unique discovery or judicial attention con-
7 currently with the common pretrial matters and, as a result,
8 the litigation will harmoniously proceed for the benefit
9 of the parties, their witnesses and the judiciary. And
10 the transferee judge has power to provide that no party
11 need participate in pretrial proceedings unrelated to that
12 party's interests. See, e.g., Manual for Complex Litigation,
13 Parts I and II, §§2.31 (rev. ed. 1977).
The proponents of centralization in the Southern District
14 of Mississippi argue as follows: (1) the crash occurred
15 there, and the Panel has often followed a "situs of the
16 crash" rule in selecting the transferee district in air
17 disaster litigation; (2) many of the factors cited by the
18 Panel in support of the "situs of the crash" rule -- including
19 the facts that all the witnesses to the crash, the rescue
20 efforts and the weather conditions reside in the Southern
District of Mississippi, as do all airport personnel who
24 may have had contact with the aircraft prior to the crash --
22 are present in this litigation; and (3) the Southern ]
23 District of Mississippi is the only forum in which actions
24 have been filed by representatives and/or relatives of
25 each of the decedents.
FPI—MAR——3.27.79.64.1781

Case MDL No. 407 Document2 Filed 05/20/15 Page	5 of 7
. -5—
1
@ 5 While it is true that we have often applied a situs
of the crash rule in air disaster litigation, under the
> circumstances of the present litigation we are persuaded
4 that centralization in the Northern District of Oklahoma
5 will result in the most expeditious resolution of these
6 actions. The record before us makes it clear that discovery
7 and other pretrial proceedings concerning liability issues
8 in this litigation will in all likelihood focus on at least
9 six different geographic areas: Mississippi (the situs
of the crash); Texas (where two companies which participated
+o in the engine's major overhaul maintain their headquarters
11 and where, therefore, some witnesses and potentially relevant
12 documents are located); Wichita, Kansas (the location of
@ 13 Beech's headquarters, and therefore the location of numerous
14 witnesses and potentially relevant documents); Williamsport,
15 Pennsylvania (the location of the engine manufacturer's
16 headquarters, and the place where the "teardown inspection"
19 of the allegedly defective engine occurred); Tulsa, Oklahoma
(where, as previously noted, the major overhaul of the
18 engine was accomplished); and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (where
19 the Federal Aviation Administration records on the aircraft
20 in question, including the records of major repairs and
21 alterations, allegedly are located). Given these foci
22 for pretrial proceedings on the liability issues, we are
23 persuaded that the Northern District of Oklahoma would
04 be a more centrally located and easily accessible transferee
@ forum than the Southern District of Mississippi.
25
FPI=MAR=—3.27.79.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 407 Docyment 2 Filed 05/20/15 Page 6 of 7
. .
2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. |
3 §1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and
4 pending in districts other than the Northern District of
5 Oklahoma be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
Northern District of Oklahoma and, with the consent of
° that court, assigned to the Honorable H. Dale Cook for
7 coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
8 actions already pending there and listed on Schedule A.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 |
23 :
24
25 ®
FPI—MAR—3.27.78-6M.1781

Case MDL No. 407 Document2 Filed 05/20/15 Page	7 of 7
i 1 DOCKET NO. 407
CY Schedule A2
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Civil Action No.
3
Audrey E. Crawford, et al. v. 79-0456-P
4 Beech Aircraft Corporation
H. P. Lucas v. Beech Aircrat 79-0455-P
5 Corporation
6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
v H. P. Lucas v. Beech Aircraft H79-0069(N)
Corporation, et al.
8 Joseph White, et al. v. Beech 79-0295 (R)
Aircraft Corporation
9
Nancy Catherine Davis, etc. v. : H79-0164(C)
10 Beech Aircrat Corporation, et al.
11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Audrey E. Crawford, et al., etc. wv. 79-C-506-D
12 Miller Aviation Enterprises, Inc., et al.
J 13 H. P. Lucas, et al. v. Miller 79-C-486-C
Aviation Enterprises, Inc., et al.
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
15 H. P. Lucas, et al., etc. v. Beech CA3-79-0977-K
Aircraft Corporation
16
Audrey E. Crawford, et al. v. Beech CA3-79-1022-G
17 Aircraft Corporation, et al.
18
19
20
21
22
23
® :
25
FPI—MAR—3.27-79-6M-1781