Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04946/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04946-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Defendant General Electric has also filed with this Court a Notice of Tag Along Action,

contending that this action should be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It is unclear

whether this notice was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDY OXFORD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04946 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

TRANSFER ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.

§ 1407

Defendant Todd Shipyards Corporation (“Todd”) has filed a motion to transfer this action to the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Todd contends that transfer is warranted because this action is a “tag

along action” to In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), MDL-875.1

The Court agrees that this action appears to qualify as a “tag-along action,” because it shares

“common questions of fact” with the previously consolidated asbestos cases. See In re Asbestos Prods.

Liability Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415 (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit., July 29, 1991) (consolidating pending,

pretrial asbestos cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania); Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

Proc. Rule 1.1 (defining “tag-along action”). 28 U.S.C. § 1407, however, clearly states that “[s]uch

transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). Indeed,

the statue provides that proceedings for the transfer of an action may be initiated only by: 

(i) the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation upon its own initiative, or

(ii) motion filed with the panel by a party in any action in which transfer for coordinated

or consolidated pretrial proceedings under this section may be appropriate.

Case 3:05-cv-04946-CRB Document 11 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

28 U.S.C. § 1407(c).

Thus, although it appears that this action qualifies as a “tag-along action” and should be

consolidated with the other asbestos cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Court must DENY

Todd’s motion to transfer (Docket No. 10). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is the proper

forum for Todd’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/24/06

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04946-CRB Document 11 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2