IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton International Airport in Denver, Colorado, on August 7, 1985

es Case MDL No. 335 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 7
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL JUDICIAL PANEL ON | - :
ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION | EEE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FILED PIR )
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT STAPLETON) MAR 23 1978 Yen :INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN DENVER, ) DQGEET AND +B 3RD | Ta
COLORADO, ON AUGUST 7, 1975 ) CLERK OF THE PANEL
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JCHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, os
EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, od
ANDREW A, CAFFREY*, AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. I
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of six actions pending in two
1 -
districts: five in the Southern District of Texas and one : RT
in the Central District of California. All the actions are : :
brought by crew members of a Continental Airlines aircraft :
that crashed during take-off from the Denver, Colorado : Lo
airport on August 7, 1975.
Four of the Texas actions are brought against The Boeing oo
Company (Boeing); two of those actions also name Airesearch
Aviation Company (Airesearch) as a defendant. A different Co Co
flight attendant is the sole plaintiff in each of three of SE
these actions. These three flight attendants and a fourth
flight attendant are plaintiffs in the fourth action.
Plaintiffs in these four actions allege that they sustained Co
* Judges Lord and Caffrey took no part in the decision of
this matter.
l/ The five Texas actions have been consolidated by order
of the Texas court.

oo Case MDL No. 335 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 7 - : |
-2 - oo 3
; . injuries during the crash when their seatbacks and/or seatbelts CL
failed, allowing the plaintiffs to slide wholly or partly from | Co
their seats. Two of these plaintiffs also allege in three of |
the actions that they were further injured when a coat closet
came loose from its fastenings during the crash and fell on : FEES
them, Boeing, and Airesearch in the actions in which it is named, Ea
are charged with negligence and breach of certain warranties =
in the design, manufacture and assembly of the aircraft and
: its parts.
Two of these flight attendants have brought the fifth PRI
Texas action against the United States, charging employees of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with negligence in 5
the control and operation of the Denver airport's air traffic SL
services. oo
The California action has been brought against the United oo
States by three cockpit crew members of the alrcraft and one Co J
of the flight attendants who is involved in three of the Texas Ba
actions. As in the Texas action brought against the United Co
States, the California plaintiffs claim negligence in the oo
operation of the Denver airport's air traffic services. : So

-- - Case MDL No. 335 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 7
® The California plaintiffs move the Panel for an order pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 transferring the Texas actions to the
Central District of California for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there. The United
States cross-moves to transfer all six actions to the District of
2/
Colorado, Only Airesearch and Boeing oppose transfer.
We find that these actions involve common questions of fact
and that their transfer under Section 1407 to the District of
Colorado for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
® and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Opponents to transfer urge that, as a result of the con-
solidation of the Texas actions, only two actions are actually
pending in this litigation and that there are thus too few
actions to justify Section 1407 transfer. These parties also
dispute the degree of overlap among the actions and urge that
any danger of duplicative discovery can be eliminated through
cooperation among the parties.
2/ The United States has advised us that two passengers
on the aircraft have filed administrative tort claims against
the United States and that,	if these claims are denied,
additional actions could arise.
®

Case MDL No. 335 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 7 : =
- 4 -
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Central to all C
actions in this litigation will be the determination whether
the crash and/or the concomitant injuries were caused
by crew error, defects in the design or construction of the
aircraft, the negligence of the Government, or some combination
thereof. Thus, while voluntary cooperation among the parties
in multidistrict litigation is always commendable, transfer
of these actions to a single district for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings will ensure that the
possibilities of duplication of discovery and inconsistent
pretrial rulings will be eliminated. Additionally, transferring
these actions under Section 1407 will have the salutary effect [
of providing a ready forum for the inclusion of any newly
filed actions, which the United States suggests might be filed,
in the centralized pretrial proceedings. See In re Industrial
Wine Contracts Securities Litigation, 386 F. Supp. 909, 912
(J.P.M.L. 1975); Rules 1, 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D.
253, 255, 259-60 (1975).
With respect to the selection of the transferee forum,
California plaintiffs recognize that the Panel has traditionally
centralized domestic air disaster litigation in the district
that is the situs of the crash, see, e.g., In re Air Crash
Disaster at John F, Kennedy International Airport on June 24, C

- - Case MDL No. 335 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	5 of 7
-5 =
|
1975, 407 F. Supp. 244 (J.P.M.L. 1976), but these plaintiffs
urge that, in the present litigation, the Central District of
California is the appropriate transferee forum for the
following reasons: 1) The majority of the plaintiffs presently
reside in California and the majority of the plaintiffs prefer
the Central District of California; 2) As a result of the
United States' claims that the crash was caused by crew
negligence, discovery of training techniques and documents will
be required of Continental Airlines at its Los Angeles base
where those documents are located; 3) Discovery will be
® required of Airesearch at its Los Angeles facility where the
plane was allegedly outfitted with components which exacerbated
the flight attendants’ injuries; and 4) No action in this
litigation is pending in Colorado.
We have not been persuaded to depart from our "situs of
the crash" rule in this litigation and, therefore, select the
District of Colorado as the transferee forum. Air traffic
controllers who were responsible for the flight, ground
witnesses to the crash and significant documentary evidence,
such as tape recordings of conversations between the cockpit
crew and the control tower personnel, are located in the
® Denver area. Pretrial proceedings on the key common issue

Case MDL No. 335 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	6 of 7 . -
- 6 -
of liability can therefore best be supervised in the District ®
of Colorado. See id. at 246; In re Air Crash Disaster Near
Upperville, Virginia, 393 F. Supp. 1089, 1090, (J.P.M.L. 1975).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A be,
and the same hereby are, transferred to the District of Colorado
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
®
®

2 ° Case MDL No. 335 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	7 of 7
DOCKET NO. 335 SCHEDULE A
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Robert E. Pries, et al. v. United States Civil Action
of America No. C77-2340-WPG
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Juliana Shepard Boval v. Boeing Co., et al. Civil Action
No. 76-H-1706
Janetta Johnson Butler v. Boeing Co., et al. Civil Action
No. 77-H=-¢10
Janetta J. Butler and Juliana Shepard v. Civil Action
United States of America No. 77-H=-1021
Sue Ann Sutton v. Boeing Co., et al. Civil Action
No, 77-H-1249
Christie Wand, et al. v. Boeing Co., et al. Civil Action
® No, 77-H-1468