In re Duarte, California Air Crash Disaster, 106.
Decision Date | 01 February 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 106.,106. |
Citation | 354 F. Supp. 278 |
Parties | In re DUARTE, CALIFORNIA AIR CRASH DISASTER ON JUNE 6, 1971. James S. Phillips, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., D.C., Civil Action No. 118-72 |
Court | 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.
On June 6, 1971, a Marine Corps aircraft collided in mid-air with a Hughes Air West passenger plane and in July 1972 the Panel transferred more than 30 actions arising from that collision to the Central District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re Duarte, California, Air Disaster Litigation, 346 F.Supp. 529 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit.1972). The Phillips action, brought by the parents of the Marine Corps pilot killed in the collision, was subsequently filed in the District of Columbia and was the subject of a conditional transfer order to the Central District of California, entered by the Clerk of the Panel pursuant to the Panel's Rule 12. 53 F.R.D. 119, 123 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1971). The sole defendant, Hughes Air, has expressed its opposition to the proposed transfer. On the basis of the briefs and oral argument, we order the Phillips action transferred to the Central District of California.
Hughes has moved to dismiss or to quash process in the Phillips action on the grounds that it was not doing business in the District of Columbia and that service upon it was, therefore, improper. The plaintiffs have moved for a continuance of that motion pending answers to certain interrogatories and Hughes has moved to strike those interrogatories. None of these motions has been argued before the District of Columbia court.
Hughes contends that the action should be left with the transferor court for decision of the motion to dismiss because the transferor court has a greater familiarity with the relevant laws. This argument is unconvincing. As Hughes conceded at oral argument, its motion to dismiss is clearly a pretrial motion which may appropriately be decided by the transferee court and the problem of ascertaining and applying the law of the transferor jurisdiction is frequently faced by transferee judges. See, e. g., In re Puerto Rico Air Disaster Litigation, 340 F.Supp. 492 (D.P.R.1972).
Hughes also argues that the Phillips action is factually different from the cases previously transferred because...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc.
...In re Air Crash Disaster at Duarte, California, 346 F.Supp. 529 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1972); see also In re Duarte, California Air Crash Disaster, 354 F.Supp. 278 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1973). Soon thereafter, the district judge ordered all of the air crash cases consolidated for the sole purpose ......
-
IN RE AMTRAK TRAIN CRASH IN BAYOU CANOT, ALA.
...which the complaint was originally filed — in this instance, Arizona federal court. See, e.g., In re Duarte, California Air Crash Disaster on June 6, 1971, 354 F.Supp. 278, 279 (J.P.M.L.1973).2 Arizona law, the law of the forum state, governs the issue of personal jurisdiction in this case.......
-
IN RE AIRCRASH NEAR DUARTE, CALIFORNIA, ON JUNE 6, 1971
...121, aff'd. sub nom. I-T-E Circuit Breaker v. Becker (8 Cir. 1965), 343 F.2d 361-363. 2 See supplemental Orders of February 1, 1973, 354 F.Supp. 278 (Jud.Pan.Mult. Lit.); September 25, 1971; December 12, 1972; August 28, 3 About 30 of such orders have heretofore been made. ...
- IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT GR. CINCINNATI AIRPORT, ETC., 8B.