IN RE: Union Carbide, Corporation Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India, in December 1984

oo. Case MDL No. 626 Docugent2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of3 |JUSICIAL PANEL ani: - ; KALTIDISTRICT LITISATION
; FILED
- | FEB -6 185
C RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION PATRIA B.ED	‘ 1K OF THE pus
DOCKET NO. 626 ERR OF THe PANEL
IN RE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION GAS PLANT DISASTER AT BHOPAL, INDIA
IN DECEMBER, 1984 EE -
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 presently consists of eighteen actions pending inseven districts as follows:=
Southern District of New York 6 actions
Southern District of West Virginia 4 actions
District of Connecticut 4 actions
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 1 action
Eastern District of New York 1 action
- Northern District of Illinois 1 action
Southern District of Florida 1 action
C Before the Panel 1s a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, by plaintiffs% in one West Virginia action and one Connecticut action to centralize the
actions in this litigation in the Southern District of West Virginia, or
¥ Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in the decision of this
matter.
1/ The motion before the Panel, as originally filed on December 21,
1984, pertained to four actions: two actlons in the Southern District
of West Virginia and one action each in the District of Connecticut and
Northern District of Illinois. Subsequently, movants amended their
motion to include additional actions and several plaintiffs made motions
to centralize these actions and numerous other.actions in one of seven
proposed transferee districts. Movants' amendment as well as the addi-
tional motions were filed too late to be included in the hearing held by
the Panel on January 24, 1985. The other fourteen actions are included
In the matter before us because all parties to those actions have stated
in writing thelr respective positions on the present motion and partici-
pated 1n oral argument at the Panel's January 24th hearing. In
addition, the Panel has been advised of several recently filed related
actions. These actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions.
See Rules 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 278-80 (1981).

” ) Case MDL No. 626 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	2 of 3 .
a @
in the alternative the Eastern District of New York, for qbordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. All responding parties agree on the	propriety of Section 1407 centralization. . The only dispute concerns
seledtion of the transferee district. Each of ‘the seven districts
wherein these eighteen actions are pending has been suggested by various
parties as an appropriate transferee forum.
: On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel
finds that these eighteen actions involve common questions of fact and
that centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District of New
) York will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
} . promote the Just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions
Lo . share numerous factual questions concerning the December 3, 1984
] ~ disaster at the Union Carbide methyl isocyanate plant in Bhopal, India.
i + Allegedly over 2,000 people were killed and many thousands more were
injured when toxic methyl isocyanate gas was released from the plant.
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. | .
5 Although none of the seven forums suggested by the parties could be
characterized as the nexus of this litigation involving a foreign
disaster, on balance we are persuaded that the Southern District of )	. York 1s the appropriate transferee.forum. We note that Union Carbide
a New York corporation and that relevant witnesses and documents may be
located at its corporate headquarters in nearby Danbury, Connecticut.
We also note that the Southern District of New York has more pending
actions than any other district and 1s, according to the preponderance
of the parties' representations to the Panel, relatively more convenient
a for many parties, including plaintiffs and defendant Union Carbide, and
: witnesses. DE I lie
. 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 Southern District of New York be, and the same hereby
are, transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the
: ~ consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John F. Keenan for
"coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions’
pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

ST Case MDL No. 626 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	3 of 3
oo © Schedule A
MDL-626 -- In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India
C in December, 1981 oo COSREL A SRoRAS, SRC.
Northern District of Illinois .
Deepa Bhargawa, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. 84-C-10603
Southern District of West Virginia
Mrs. Sheela Bai Dawanl, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. 84-2479
A. K. Pandia Shri, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. CA-84-21482
Kanta Bai Sahoo, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. 2:85-0063
Abdul Rauf, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. 2:85-0071
| Southern District of New York
Sudhir Parhauk, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. NO. 84 Civ. 9202
Sona Bhai, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. 84 Civ. 8873
Dasarath Namdev Savarker, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No.
85 Civ. 0089 aes
C Asit Kumar Sarkar, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. 84 Civ. 9342. Padmaker Krisha Rao Gavankar, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No.
; 5 Civ. 0307
Sabir Husain, etc. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. 85 Civ. OU4T
Eastern District of New York
Shakir Ali, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. BA-84-4942
Southern District of Florida
Asha Devi Saxena, etc. v. Union Carbide Corp. , C.A. No. 85-0129
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Rashid Mia, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. CA-84-6291
District of Connecticut
Rafigullah Khan, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. B-85-27-WWE
Lakhan Singh, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. B-84-812-EBB
C Amar Singh Mahavir, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. N-85-05-EBBOliver Wilson, et al. v. Union Carbide Corp., C.A. No. B-84-792-WWE