In Re Aircrash Near Duarte, California, on June 6, 1971

357 F. Supp. 1013
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 19, 1973
DocketMDL No. 106
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 357 F. Supp. 1013 (In Re Aircrash Near Duarte, California, on June 6, 1971) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Aircrash Near Duarte, California, on June 6, 1971, 357 F. Supp. 1013 (C.D. Cal. 1973).

Opinion

357 F.Supp. 1013 (1973)

In re Multidistrict Civil Actions Involving the AIRCRASH NEAR DUARTE, CALIFORNIA, ON JUNE 6, 1971.

MDL No. 106.

United States District Court, C. D. California.

March 19, 1973.

Lord, Bissel & Brook, Chicago, Ill., and Shield & Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., for Hughes Air Corp.

Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., and James Stotter, II, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for United States.

Vincent H. D. Abbey, Seattle, Wash., Belcher, Henzie & Biegenzahn, Los Angeles, Cal., Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, Lawrason Driscoll, San Francisco, *1014 Cal., Butler, Jefferson & Fry, Hart & Mieras, Lawler, Felix & Hall, Loeb & Loeb, Los Angeles, Cal., Vincent Pettit, Inglewood, Cal., Garth S. Pincock, Pocatello, Idaho, Prince, Mangum, Yeates & Miller, Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, Salt Lake City, Utah, Eugene J. Craig, Seattle, Wash., Jay H. Davison, Covina, Cal., Demanes & Sanders, Burlingame, Cal., Irving S. Feffer, Los Angeles, Cal., Feist, Vetter, Knauf & Loy, Oceanside, Cal., Offices of Ned Good, Goodman Hirschberg & King, Magana & Cathcart, Margolis, McTernan, Smith, Scope & Sacks, John T. McTernan, Los Angeles, Cal., Miller, Bronn, Brummett & Porter, Long Beach, Cal., Aaron P. Moss, Van Nuys, Cal., Arthur H. Nielsen, Salt Lake City, Utah, Oliver, Sloan, Vargas, Shaffer & Lindvig, Richard L. Oliver, Los Angeles, Cal., Ben Peterson, Pocatello, Idaho, Roberts, Poole & Robson, Theron E. Roberts, Boise, Idaho, Jerry N. Roth, Beverly Hills, Cal., Lloyd E. Somogyi, San Luis Obispo, Cal., Sonenshine & Armstrong, Newport Beach, Cal., Walkup, Downing, Sterns & Poore, Terence J. O'Reilly, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

ORDER TRANSFERRING ALL CASES NOT ORIGINATING IN THIS DISTRICT TO THIS DISTRICT ON ALL ISSUES FOR ALL PURPOSES

PEIRSON M. HALL, District Judge.

The Court has concluded, sua sponte, that all of the cases not originating in this District and originally filed in other Districts which are covered by the above MDL No. 106 should be transferred to this District on all issues and for all purposes.[1]

Seventy-two actions were filed in various United States District Courts for the wrongful deaths of the entire forty-nine occupants of an Air West passenger plane which crashed upon collision with a Marine jet on June 6, 1971. Most of the actions were originally filed in this District. A number were filed in other Districts, the titles and numbers of which are hereinafter indicated. They have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, under MDL Docket No. 106, see 346 F. Supp. 529.

On the hearing of the motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 various plaintiffs in other Districts than this one urged that any transfer under § 1407 should be limited to discovery on the issue of liability only. The Court specifically held that it could not sever and transfer a single issue but that the whole action must be transferred, and stated, inter alia:

"It (the Act, 28 U.S.C. 1407) does not authorize the Panel to transfer one issue raised by a claim, such as liability, while remanding another issue raised by the same claim such as damages. For this reason we deny respondents' request. Cf. In re Antibiotic Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. 1403 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit., 1969); In re Air Crash Disaster at Greater Cincinnati Airport, 298 F.Supp. 353 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit., 1968). We also think it more conducive to effective judicial management to allow the transferee judge to determine whether and to what extent discovery on separate issues is appropriate for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See, In re San Juan, Puerto Rico Air Crash Disaster, 316 F.Supp. 981 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit., 1970)."

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation then ordered all the cases then pending in this District, as well as the cases pending in the District of Utah and then pending in the District of Washington, transferred to this District and to the undersigned Judge for *1015 coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Additional cases have since been filed and transferred.[2]

The Kalbfleisch case, No. 71-2878, was filed in the Northern District of California and transferred here under 1404. The Judith Wilkerson case was filed in the Northern District of California and was later filed or transferred here.

Rule 15(b) of the Rules on Multidistrict Litigation, 28 U.S.C. § 1407—15 (b), [formerly 15(e)] provides as follows:

"(b) Each transferred action that has not been terminated in the transferee court will be remanded to the transferor district for trial, unless ordered transferred by the transferee judge to the transferee or other district under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. 1406. In the event that the transferee judge transfers an action under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) or 1406, an order of remand shall not be necessary to authorize further proceedings including trial." (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 1407(a) provides, among other things, that "each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated: . . ."

It is settled that when an action is transferred by the Panel, until the time it is remanded, the transferor court is without authority to issue any orders or to entertain a Sec. 1404(a) motion or any other motion. In the Plumbing Fixture case, 298 F.Supp. 484, Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit., 1968, the Court held that a transfer under Sec. 1407 was a change of venue for pretrial purposes, and that in such instance,

"* * * * the overwhelming authority holds that the jurisdiction and powers of the transferee court are co-extensive with that of the transferor court; that the transferee court may make any order to render any judgment that might have been rendered by the transferor court in the absence of transfer. 92 C.J.S. Venue § 207 pp. 980-981 and cases therein cited, cf. Greve v. Gibralter Enterprises (D. N.M.) 85 F.Supp. 410, l. c. 414; that after an order changing venue the jurisdiction of the transferor court ceases; and that thereafter the transferor court can issue no further orders, and any steps taken by it are of no effect. Phebus v. Search (C.A. 8) 264 F. 407, l. c. 409; 21 C.J.S. Courts § 517a; 20 Am.Jur.2d § 149; 56 Am.Jur. Venue, § 78, p. 79. These principles are applicable to a transfer under Section 1407 from the time of entry of the order of transfer until the time of entry of an order of remand." (Emphasis supplied.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
102 F.3d 1524 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
In Re Longhorn Securities Litigation
573 F. Supp. 274 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1983)
In Re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Etc.
476 F. Supp. 445 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 1979)
Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc.
557 F.2d 759 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)
Jewel Vincent, Claimant-Appellant v. Hughes Air West, Inc., a Corporation, United States of America, Defendant- Howard Brand v. Hughes Air West, Inc., a Corporation, Norene E. Forgy v. Hughes Air West, Inc., a Corporation, Cynthia Kalbfleisch v. Hughes Air Corp., a Corporation, D/B/A Air West, Inc., Etc., United States of America, Daniel Subic and Alice Elder v. Hughes Air West, Inc., a Corporation, and United States of America, Norene E. Forgy v. The United States of America, Howard Brand v. The United States of America, James A. Thomas v. Hughes Air Corporation, Etc., James A. Thomas v. United States of America, Kathryn J. Thomas v. United States of America, James A. Thomas v. Hughes Air Corporation, Etc., Kathryn J. Thomas v. Hughes Air Corporation, Etc., Apolinar Espitia v. Hughes Air West, Inc., Etc., Cheryl Johnson Deveau v. Hughes Air West, Inc., Etc., Guillermo Rangel v. Hughes Air West, Inc., a Corporation, Ana Rosa Rangel v. Hughes Air West, Inc., a Corporation, Daniel Subic and Alice Elder v. United States of America, Cheryl Johnson Deveau v. United States of America, Apolinar Espitia v. United States of America, Guillermo Rangel v. United States of America, Ana Rosa Rangel v. United States of America, Steven Bird v. Hughes Air West, Inc., Leland A. Harward and Phyllis Harward v. United States of America, Margaret M. Reeves v. The United States of America, Steven Bird v. United States of America, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. United States
557 F.2d 759 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)
Schweninger v. Walston & Co.
63 F.R.D. 115 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1974)
Poseidon Schiffahrt G.M.B.H. v. the M/S Netuno
361 F. Supp. 412 (S.D. Georgia, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
357 F. Supp. 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aircrash-near-duarte-california-on-june-6-1971-cacd-1973.