In re Air Fare Litigation, 58.

Citation322 F. Supp. 1013
Decision Date19 February 1971
Docket NumberNo. 58.,58.
PartiesIn re AIR FARE LITIGATION.
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chairman*, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In August 1969, the domestic air carriers filed increased passenger tariffs with the Civil Aeronautics Board. After holding several meetings with representatives of the airline industry and a public hearing, the Board issued an order suspending the tariffs on file pending a more complete investigation. However, the Board also found that the carriers had demonstrated a need for some additional revenue and it outlined its own fare formula and announced that it would permit tariffs implementing its formula to be filed without suspension, thus assuring almost immediate effectiveness. The carriers then withdrew their previous tariffs and filed for new increases based on the Board's model. On September 30, 1969, an application for reconsideration of the prior CAB order was denied and the fares based upon the Board's formula were allowed to stand without suspension or investigation.

Thirty-two interested Congressmen then filed an action in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia alleging that the Civil Aeronautics Board, by excluding the public from ex parte meetings with representatives of the air carriers and by holding a pro forma public hearing, had unlawfully approved the increased fare structure. On July 9, 1970, the Court of Appeals held that because the public notice and hearing requirements of Section 102(d) of the Federal Aviation Act were not observed, the order was invalid and the tariffs filed by the carrier based on the Board's order were unlawful. The case was remanded to the Board for further proceedings. Moss v. CAB, 430 F.2d 891 (D.C.C.A., 1970).

The litigation now before us emanates from the Moss Case. Each of these actions is brought as a class action on behalf of all or a portion of the passengers on domestic airlines who paid the increased fare. Each seeks recovery for the representative party and the class which he seeks to represent against one or more of the domestic airlines. On October 22, 1970, we entered an order directing the parties to show cause why these cases should not be transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. We initially delayed our hearing to await action by the CAB on a petition before it requesting similar relief. Since the Board has not yet acted and the parties are anxious to proceed with the actions now pending in federal district courts, we felt that further delay was inadvisable and set this matter for hearing in San Francisco on January 22, 1971.

The statements of counsel who appeared at the hearing and the written responses to the show cause order reveal that the parties generally agree that transfer under Section 1407 is necessary to avoid potentially conflicting class action claims. The only parties objecting to transfer did so because they felt that a transfer might delay their actions and perhaps because they were concerned that a transfer might reduce their chances of representing the classes they seek.

Although the parties are in agreement that transfer under Section 1407 is appropriate, we must still be satisfied that the requirement of Section 1407 relating to the existence of common questions of fact is met. The parties concede that the question of whether farepaying passengers are entitled to a refund for the allegedly illegal portion of their fares is primarily a question of law but they recognize that Section 1407 does not authorize the transfer of cases which only share common questions of law. The more typical common questions of fact occurring in multidistrict litigation relate to proof of liability while questions relating to proof of damages generally do not lend themselves to common discovery and may be left for the transferor courts following remand. In re San Juan Air Disaster Litigation, 316 F. Supp. 981 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1970).

However, it may be that these cases are atypical for the common questions of fact, indeed the only questions of fact relate to damages, particularly with regard to the makeup, potential overlap and damages to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Moss v. C. A. B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 16 Octubre 1975
    ...Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In re Air Fare Litigation, 322 F.Supp. 1013 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit., 1971). Partly in order to aid the Northern District of Illinois to resolve these suits, the Board deferred decision o......
  • IN RE EQUITY FUNDING CORP. OF AM. SECURITIES LITIGATION
    • United States
    • Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
    • 25 Abril 1974
    ...1969); In re Public Air Travel Tariff Litigation, 360 F.Supp. 1397 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1973); In re Air Fare Litigation, 322 F. Supp. 1013 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1971). In the first case the common issue was the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute. In the two other cases the principal comm......
  • Weidberg v. American Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 12 Enero 1972
    ...consolidated pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), In re Air Fare Litigation, 322 F.Supp. 1013 (1971). The Panel realized that the seven actions which were filed in the wake of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Dis......
  • Roberts v. American Airlines, Inc., 74-1108
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 8 Diciembre 1975
    ...the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re Air Fare Litigation, 322 F.Supp. 1013 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1971). Following transfer, the defendants moved to stay the proceedings pending completion of a CAB investigation ent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • 1 Enero 2013
    ...634 (E.D. Mich. 1989), 107 Air Crash Near Van Cleve, Miss., In re , 486 F. Supp. 926 (J.P.M.L. 1980), 170 Air Fare Litig., In re , 322 F. Supp. 1013 (J.P.M.L. 1971), 168 Airline Ticket Litig., In re , 918 F. Supp. 283 (D. Minn. 1995), 19 Alcon Mfg. v. Apotex Inc., 2008 WL 5070465 (S.D. Ind.......
  • Strategic Considerations For Multidistrict Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • 1 Enero 2013
    ...transfer would not serve convenience of parties and witnesses or promote efficient conduct of litigation). 14. In re Air Fare Litig., 322 F. Supp. 1013, 1015 (J.P.M.L. 1971). 15 . See e.g. In re Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig., 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (“As we have stated in t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT