Union Light, Heat and Power Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court
| Decision Date | 06 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | 78-3444 and 78-3447,Nos. 78-3442,s. 78-3442 |
| Citation | 588 F.2d 543 |
| Parties | The UNION LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. U. S. DISTRICT COURT, Respondent. 4-R CORPORATION, Richard J. Schilling, Ronald Schilling, Richard J. Schilling, Jr. and Raymond Scott Schilling, Petitioners, v. U. S. DISTRICT COURT, Respondent. STERLING LIGHTING, Division of Scovill Manufacturing Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. U. S. DISTRICT COURT, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
C. R. Beirne, Beirne & Wirthlin, Michael A. Fulton, Cincinnati, Ohio, James R. Poston, The Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner in No. 78-3442.
Ralph F. Mitchell, Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioners in No. 78-3444.
Jack E. Ruck, Barnett & Alagia, Louisville, Ky., for petitioner.
Lawrence A. Kane, Jr., Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates & Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.
Before EDWARDS, ENGEL and MERRITT, Circuit Judges.
Several defendants seek a writ of mandamus in this case which arises from the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire on May 28, 1977, in Northern Kentucky. Some 250 people died or were injured in the fire. They have filed suit against a large number of defendants. Most of the plaintiffs who do not reside in Kentucky have filed diversity actions in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The plaintiffs who are Kentucky residents have filed suit in the Circuit Court of Campbell County, Kentucky. All the federal cases are assigned to District Judge Rubin, and the state cases are assigned to Circuit Judge Diskin. These two judges are working together to adjudicate the cases.
District Judge Rubin has set one of the cases, a class action case, for trial first. The trial is currently set in February 1979, on the issue of liability against eight of the defendants. Three defendants have petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring Judge Rubin to postpone the trial in the federal cases until the state cases are decided. They also seek to review the District Judge's class action certification, as well as his rulings, and his postponement of certain rulings, on issues of diversity jurisdiction.
We conducted a special, expedited hearing on October 31, 1978, on the petition for writ of mandamus and heard argument by counsel for the parties, including counsel for District Judge Rubin. On the basis of the pleadings, the argument of counsel and the record before us, it appears that the District Judge and the state trial judge are sensitive to the issues of federalism and considerations of comity which are present in this case. They have held hearings jointly on some pre-trial motions and are cooperating in establishing discovery and trial schedules. When unresolved issues of state law have arisen, the federal judge has properly deferred to the rulings of the state court. The federal and the state judges appear to be coordinating their activities so as to avoid conflict between the two judicial systems. Additionally, the Kentucky Supreme Court has recently adopted a procedure for certification of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
... ... MDL No. 486 ... United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D ... September 17, 1985. 624 F ... Sixth Circuit and deemed to be beyond the power of this Court. See In re: Bendectin Products ... What happened was, in agreement for us not to go take depositions all around the world, ... that the individual's susceptibility to heat, the individual's susceptibility to the fatigue ... ( Id. at 7) In light of the Court's ruling that evidence of ... ...
-
E.E.O.C. v. K-Mart Corp., K-MART
...power or a clear abuse of discretion. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. at 110, 85 S.Ct. at 238. Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. U.S. District Court, 588 F.2d 543, 544 (6th Cir.1978), cert. dismissed sub. nom. Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Rubin, 443 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 3103, 61 L.Ed.2d 8......
-
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
...(1982); Payton v. Abbott Labs, 83 F.R.D. 382 (D.C.Mass.1979); Coburn v. 4-R Corp., 77 F.R.D. 43 (E.D.Ky.1977), mandamus denied, 588 F.2d 543 (6th Cir.1978); Hernandez v. Motor Vessel Skyward, 61 F.R.D. 558 (S.D.Fla.1973); aff'd without opinion, 507 F.2d 1279 (5th Cir.1975).11 See Irving Pul......
-
In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit.
...exceed the ability of defendants to respond." 77 F.R.D. 43, 45 (E.D.Ky.1977), mandamus denied sub nom. Union, Light, Heat & Power v. United States Dist. Ct., 588 F.2d 543 (6th Cir.1978). Conceding that it could not "state with assurance" whether or not judgments, if obtained, would be satis......
-
Table of Cases
...1967), 138 Union Carbide Corp. v. Dow Chem. Co., 619 F. Supp. 1036 (D. Del. 1985), 144 Union Light, Heath & Power Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 588 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1978), 176 United States v. Abdi, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (S.D. Ohio 2007), 185 United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194 (2d Cir. 1998),......
-
Strategic Considerations For Multidistrict Litigation
...cafa0407.ped/$file/cafa-0407.pdf. 49. Id. 50. See, e.g. , Union Light, Heath & Power Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 588 F.2d 543, 544 (6th Cir. 1978) (discussing coordination between federal and state court judges); In re Lupron Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 228 F.R.D. 75, 83 (D. Mass. 2005) (dis......