IN RE: Air Crash Disaster Near Atlantic City, New Jersey, on July 26, 1969

Case MDL No. 114 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
BEE pr: . PRT SA on ’ . oo .
nD Te	TE : CARE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL	- TT : Co .
ON SE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION j= -g 1373 LE -
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER NEAR ) Baie oo
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY, ON ) DOCKET NO. 114 ’ ,
JULY 26, 1969 ) Il g!lt
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH *, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, a
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, SE ny.JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF to Se
THE PANEL
PER CURIAM IEE oo
On July 26, 1969, a TWA Boeing 707 Aircraft crashed ETN EN Co
at the National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center near Co
Atlantic City, New Jersey. The ill-fated flight was being oe i.
conducted as a refresher training program, in accordance with Co
FAA regulations, for five TWA crew members, the only persons o co
aboard the aircraft. All five were fatally injured in the N
crash. Four actions on behalf of the decedents have been .
brought against The Boeing Company in the Northern District u
of California and one in the Western District of Washington. REECE EES
An action against TWA has also been commenced in the District :
of New Jersey by a ground serviceman injured as a result of
the crash. In the New Jersey action, TWA has filed a third- -
party complaint against Boeing, seeking indemnity and a recovery Co :
in excess of five million dollars for the loss of its aircraft. Co
* Judge Alfred P. Murrah took no part in the consideration
or decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 114 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 5
| <2 <
® TWA moves the Panel for an order transferring all
actions to the District of New Jersey for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant Boeing opposes
transfer. The California and Washington plaintiffs agree
that consolidation of all cases is necessary but disagree
with the suggestion that the District of New Jersey is the
most appropriate transferee forum. On the basis of the papers
filed and the hearing held, we find that these multidistrict
actions present common questions of fact and that for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation the New Jersey and Califor-
nia actions must be transferred to the Western District of
® Washington for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedingswith the action pending there.
Third-party plaintiff TWA and plaintiffs in the
actions pending in Washington and California allege that
Boeing was negligent either in designing or manufacturing
the airplane that crashed or in issuing instructions and infor-
mation for its use and operation. Discovery undertaken by
these parties will proceed along similar lines of inquiry,
involving the same documents and common witnesses. In order
to avoid duplication of discovery efforts and inconvenience
to parties and witnesses, consolidation of these actions for
pretrial proceedings in a single district is necessary.
®

Case MDL No. 114 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
3 = |
® Although the ground serviceman's suit pending in
New Jersey is only against TWA, it seems preferable to transfer
the entire New Jersey action. The transferee judge is in the
best position to determine the extent to which the ground
serviceman's action will benefit from participation in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings and he can
notify the Panel when that action is ready for remand to the
District of New Jersey for further proceedings. ¥
Although we generally assign air disaster litigation
to the district in which the crash occurred, 2 we are convinced
that the Western District of Washington is the most appropriate
transferee forum for this litigation. A significant amount
of discovery has been completed in the action pending in that
® district and the court has had the opportunity to become familiar
with the issues raised in these actions and will be able to
expeditiously process the remaining discovery. In addition,
all the documents and witnesses of Boeing relevant to the design
and manufacture of the airplane and the formulation of operating
instructions and procedures are located in Washington. And since
it is unlikely that further lawsuits arising out of this crash
will be filed, the Western District of Washington is the most
convenient forum for the majority of parties and witnesses
in this litigation.
1/ See amended Rule 15 of Rules and Procedures of the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,	55 F.R.D. xxx (1972).
2/ See, e.g., In re Air Crash Disaster at Huntington,
C West Virginia on November 14, 1970, F. Supp.
(J.P M.L. May 22, 1972).

Case MDL No. 114 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 5
® a- |
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions on the
attached Schedule A pending in the District of New Jersey
and the Northern District of California be, and the same
hereby are, transferred to the Western District of Washington
and assigned to the Honorable William N. Goodwin for coordina-
ted or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action
pending there, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
®
®

Case MDL No. 114 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
® SCHEDULE A . DOCKET NO. 114
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY |
William S. Lemons, Jr., et ux v. Civil Action No.
Trans World Airlines, Inc. 996 - 71
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Roma Curran, etc. v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action No.
et al. C-70-616-AJZ
Maureen Curtin, etc. v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action No.
et al C-70-250-AJZ2
Nancy Gustavson v. The Boeing Co., et al. Civil Action No.
C-70-97-AJ2
Barbara Manbeck, etc., v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action No.
C et al. C-70-204-AJZ
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Nancy J. Sklarin, etc. v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action No.
et al. 30-72-C2