IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Covington, Kentucky, on June 2, 1983

] Case MDL No. 569 Document2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of3
JUDICIAL PANEL BR
weTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
FILEC
RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 24 1984
PATRICIA D. HOY &b
CLERK OF THE PAREL
A DOCKET NO. 569 :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION |
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT COVINGTON, KENTUCKY, ON JUNE 2, 1983
BEFORE ANDREW A. CAFFREY, CHAIRMAN, ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, FRED
DAUGHERTY, SAM C. POINTER, JR.,* S. HUGH DILLIN, MILTON POLLACK,
AND LOUIS H. POLLAK, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
TRANSFER ORDER
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of nineteen actions’ pending in three
federal districts as follows:
Eastern District of Kentucky 9 actions
Northern District of Texas 7 actions
Central District of California 3 actions
[ee before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, byplaintiffs in the Kentucky actions to centralize the actions in this
litigation in the Eastern District of Kentucky for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in the California actions
have cross-moved to centralize the actions in the Central District of
California. No responding party has opposed centralization. The
parties' only dispute is over the appropriate transferee district.
Besides the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Central District of
California, some parties advocate the Northern District of Texas as the
transferee district. -
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel
finds that these nineteen actions involve common questions of fact and
that centralization under Section 1407 in the Central District of Cali-
fornia will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the Just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions
¥ Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr., took no part in the decision of this
matter.
1l/ The Panel has been advised of the pendency of several recently filed
related actions. These actions will be treated as potential tag-along
@: See Rules 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 278-801981).

Case MDL No. 569 Document2 Filed 06/02/15 Page	2 of 3 .
-D-
share numerous factual questions surrounding an in-flight fire on Air
Canada Flight 797 and consequent landing in Covington, Kentucky, on CJune 2, 1983. Centralization under Section 1407 1s thus necessary in
order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, thelr counsel and
the judiciary. :
The proponents of centralization in the Eastern District of Kentucky
argue as follows: (1) the plane landed there, and the Panel has often
followed a "situs of the crash" rule in selecting the transferee dis-
trict in air disaster litigation; and (2) many of the factors cited by
the Panel in support of this rule =-- including the fact that all airport
personnel and witnesses to the landing and the rescue efforts reside 1n
or near the Eastern District of Kentucky -- are present in this
litigation. The Texas proponents maintain that the survivors of the air
disaster are critical witnesses, several of whom reside in Texas.
While it 1s true that we have often applied a "situs of the crash"
rule in air disaster litigation, we are persuaded that centralization in
the Central District of California is the most preferable choice. This
litigation consists of allegations relating to the design and manufac-
ture of the aircraft and the cabin interiors and to the refurbishing of
the aft portion of the aircraft by Air Canada. The record before us
suggests that discovery concerning the liability issues will focus on
several geographic areas, including Canada and the states of California,
Washington, Maryland, Delaware and Ohio. Cross-movants point out that
relatively little liability discovery will be conducted in Kentucky,
because the aircraft made a safe landing there, and neither the ici)po nor its component parts was assembled there. Similarly, no assembly
manufacture of the aircraft or component parts occurred in the Northern
District of Texas. We note that the aircraft was manufactured by
McDonnell Douglas Corporation in California, that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) conducted an inspection there, and that the
aircraft was FAA certified in California. Thus the California forum 1s
the only district in which a constituent action is pending that appears
likely to be the location of substantial common discovery.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in districts
other than the Central District of California be, and the same hereby
are, transferred to the Central District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Laughlin E. Waters for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions
pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

i Case MDL No. 569 DOSHISHLA filed 06/02/15 Page	3 of 3
® MDL-569 -- In re Air Crash Disaster at Covington, Kentuck on- June 2, 1983
Northern District of Texas
An Hoa nguyen, et al. v. Air Canada, et al.,	< C.A. No. - -1 9-R
Diane Fadley, et al. v. Air Canada, et al., :
C.A. No. 3-83-1385-R
Harry Mosele et al. v. Alr Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 3-83-1280-R
Diana Mathes, et al. v. Air Canada, et al.,
Curtis M. Mathes v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 3-B3-1327-R
Roy Grubbs v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 3-83-1516-R
Carol Cox White, et al. v. Air Canada, et al.,
Eastern District of Kentucky
Gerald Bouchard v. Air Canada, et al.,
Lorraine Drdul, etc. v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 83-530
C Judith L. Helston, etc. v. Air Canada, et al.,	C.A. No. 83-227
3 Brenda June Mayne v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 3-22
Shelagh M. Nichol, etc. v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 83-231
Catherine S. Rahal, etc. v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 83-229
Audrie M. Ruttan v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 83-225 -
Carole Diane Spruston, etc. v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 3-22
Betty Irene Pohl v. Air Canada, et al.,
C.A. No. 83-235
Central District of California
Rosemary B. TE et al. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,	LJ * Oe. -
Dale Thompson, et al. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
C.A. No. CVB3-6826LEW (MCX)
Susan M. Epprecht, et al. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
C.A. No. CVB3-6B57KN (JRX) :