IN RE ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)
Decision Date | 29 July 1991 |
Docket Number | MDL No. 875. |
Citation | 771 F. Supp. 415 |
Parties | In re ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI). |
Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Before JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman, S. HUGH DILLIN,* MILTON POLLACK,* LOUIS H. POLLAK, HALBERT O. WOODWARD, ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr., and WILLIAM B. ENRIGHT, Judges of the Panel.
On January 17, 1991, the Panel issued an order to show cause why all pending federal district court actions not then in trial involving allegations of personal injury or wrongful death caused by asbestos should not be centralized in a single forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Because of the difficulty in serving this order on the enormous number of parties in this docket, the Panel relied on the clerks of all district courts to serve the parties to actions in their respective districts.1 As a result, the parties to the 26,639 actions pending in 87 federal districts and listed on the following Schedule A are subject to the Panel's order.2 Editor's Note: All but the Summary of Schedule A has been omitted from publication by the Court. More than 180 pleadings have been filed in response to the Panel's order, and a four hour hearing on the question of transfer was held on May 30, 1991 in New York City, at which time 37 counsel presented oral argument. In many instances the attorneys filing these pleadings or participating in oral argument were representing the views of large groups of parties.
Supporting transfer are plaintiffs in approximately 17,000 actions (including a core group of more than 14,000 plaintiffs represented by over 50 law firms) and 30 defendants (24 of which are named in more than 20,000 actions). Opposing transfer are plaintiffs in at least 5,200 actions and 454 defendants. The positions of those parties that have expressed a preference with respect to transferee district are varied. Many parties suggest centralization in what amounts to their home forum. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the district either expressly favored or not objected to in the greatest number of pleadings. The Eastern District of Texas, which is the choice of the aforementioned core group of 14,000 plaintiffs, is also the district that has generated the most opposition from defendants. Other suggested districts that go beyond the home forum approach are the District of the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Northern District of Ohio, and the Eastern District of New York. Some parties' forum recommendations are expressed in the form of a suggested individual transferee judge or transferee judge structure.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact relating to injuries or wrongful death allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing products, and that centralization under § 1407 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Any discussion of § 1407 transfer in this docket must begin with the recognition that the question does not arise in a vacuum. Indeed, the impetus for the Panel's order to show cause was a November 21, 1990 letter signed by eight federal district judges responsible for many asbestos actions in their respective districts.3 These judges, citing the serious problem that asbestos personal injury litigation continues to be for the federal judiciary, requested that the Panel act on its own initiative to address the question of § 1407 transfer. Furthermore, as the title of this docket suggests, this is the sixth time that the Panel has considered transfer of asbestos litigation. On the five previous occasions (1977, 1980, 1985, 1986 and 1987) that the Panel considered the question, it denied transfer in each instance.4
The Panel's constancy is not as dramatic as a mere recitation of the denials might suggest, however. The 1986 and 1987 dockets considered by the Panel involved only five and two actions, respectively. The 1985 Panel decision pertained not to personal injury/wrongful death asbestos actions but rather to property damage claims of school districts that incurred significant costs in removing asbestos products from school buildings. The denial in the 1980 Panel docket was based almost exclusively on the movants' failure to offer any distinctions that would warrant a disposition different from the Panel's first asbestos decision in 1977.
It is only in the 1977 decision, pertaining to 103 actions in nineteen districts, that the Panel offered any detailed analysis of its asbestos litigation reasoning with respect to asbestos personal injury/wrongful death actions. In that decision, the Panel first listed the primary arguments of the responding parties that unanimously opposed transfer: advanced stage of proceedings in many of the actions; use of voluntary coordinating arrangements in several districts; lack of commonality among defendants and plaintiffs; circumstances of exposure predominantly unique to each action; individual questions of causation in each action; predominantly individual questions of the liability of each defendant in each action; local issues predominating in the discovery process; absence of possibility of inconsistent or overlapping class certifications; and the readily discernible nature of the principal area common to all actions, the state of medical and scientific knowledge at a particular time regarding the health hazards posed by exposure to asbestos.
In denying transfer in the 1977 decision, the Panel recognized the existence of some common questions of fact among the actions. For in that docket, as in the matter currently before the Panel, all actions contained allegations of personal injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing products. The Panel nevertheless held that the other criteria for § 1407 transfer were not satisfied. In relevant part, the Panel stated:
Many factual questions unique to each action or to a group of actions already pending in a single district clearly predominate, and therefore transfer is unwarranted.... Furthermore, many of these actions already are well advanced. Some of the actions have been pending for up to four years, and trial dates or discovery cutoff dates have been set in several actions. Under these circumstances, transfer would not further the purposes of Section 1407.
Many of the parties presently opposing transfer in this docket rely on the facts and reasoning of the Panel's 1977 transfer decision. They insist that the situation that warranted denial then not only still prevails but has been magnified by the greatly increased number of actions and parties in federal asbestos personal injury/wrongful death litigation — more than 30,000 pending federal actions now, as opposed to the 103 actions subject to the Panel's 1977 decision. In our view, it is precisely this change that now leads us to conclude that centralization of all federal asbestos personal injury/wrongful death actions, in the words of 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), "will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions." In short, we are persuaded that this litigation has reached a magnitude, not contemplated in the record before us in 1977, that threatens the administration of justice and that requires a new, streamlined approach.
The Panel is not the first to reach such a conclusion. Just this past March 1991, the Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation, whose members were appointed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, stated as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Johns-Manville Corp.
...not widely known until the 1960s when latent asbestos injuries began to manifest throughout the nation. In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 771 F. Supp. 415, 418 (J.P.M.L. 1991) (quoting Judicial Conf. of the U.S., Report of the Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Asbestos Litigation 1-......
-
Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
...the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No VI), 771 F.Supp. 415 (Jud.Panel ...
-
US Lines v. US Lines Reorganization Trust
...if any. 3 In 1991, the Multi-District Court Panel issued its decision setting up the asbestos MDL Court. In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 771 F.Supp. 415 (Mult.Dist.Jud.Panel 1991). All federal court asbestos-related actions were transferred to the Honorable Charles R.......
-
IN RE EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS ASBESTOS LIT.
...defendants' contentions that the present consolidation exceeded the court's discretion and violated due process. In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F.Supp. 415 (Jud. Pan. on MDL 1991). In choosing to transfer the cases pursuant to section 1407 of Title 28 of the United States ......
-
Clearing the Air: Ordinary Negligence in Take-home Asbestos Exposure Litigation
...cases in 1977, only 103 actions were pending in nineteen federal districts. Id. 109. In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415, 422-24 (J.P.M.L. 110. Carrington, supra note 92, at 593. 111. Behrens, supra note 7, at 502. 112. Id. at 504. 113. Id. at 509. In the 1994 Geor......
-
Courts as Policymakers: The Uneven Justice of Asbestos Mass Tort Litigation
...Fees in Multidistrict Litigation , 67 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 589, 594 (2012). 183. In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415, 417 (J.P.M.L. 1991); Robreno, supra note 19, at 111 n.80. 184. 28 U.S.C. §1407(a)-(b). Copyright © 2020 Environmental Law Institute®, Washingto......
-
Eric D. Green, James L. Patton, Jr. & Edwin J. Harron, Future Claimant Trusts and "channeling Injunctions" to Resolve Mass Tort Environmental Liability in Bankruptcy: the Met-coil Model
...U.S. 157, 163-64 (1991); United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 203 (1983). 19 In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415, 418-19 (J.P.M.L. 1991). 20 See, e.g., In re Am. Family Enters., 256 B.R. 377, 408 (D.N.J. 2000) (noting without a channeling injunction,......
-
Toward a cooperative strategy for federal and state judges in mass tort litigation.
...of Pennsylvania, Judge Wiener assumed responsibility for almost 30,000 asbestos cases. See In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415, 416, 422 (J.P.M.L. 1991) (explaining that the MDL Panel ordered 26,639 pending asbestos cases to be transferred to the Eastern District o......