H ono rabl e J ohnW
. Darr ah, Uni t ed S t at es Dis trictJ udge 1 f or the Northe rnDis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09
- 3204 J ANE W YNNE P ETT IT Ta nd E LI Z AB ET H W YNNE D AVIES, Co- Ex ecutr i xes of the E state of S ARAH W YNNE S TEW ART, d ec ea se d , et a l., P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v.

T HE B OEI NG C O ., a c or p or at ion , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 CV 03709

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge .
A RG UE D M AR CH 29, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AY 17, 2010

Befo re C UD AH Y an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges , a nd D ARRAH, D istrict Judge. 12 N o. 09
- 3204

T his is the case th at is pr esen tly b efore u s on ap p eal. 2 C l aiss e v. Boei ng C o. , N o. 09 CV 3722. 3 Patr i ci a v. Boei ng C o. , N o. 09 CV 3728. 4 C UDAH Y, C ircu it Judge. Th e pre sen t c a s e a rises out of a tr ag ic ac c id en t th at oc c u rre d on M ay 5, 20 07, w h e n in the e ar l y m or ni ng hour s a B oeing 737- 800 ai rcr aft cr ashed shor tl y a fterta ke- offi n Cam er oo n. A l l 11 4 peopl e o n bo ar d di ed. Two y ea r s l at er, s i x w r o ng ful

- dea tha nd survi valact i ons w er e fi l ed i n Cook County Ci rcui t Cour t, but were prom p tly r em ove d to the Unite d Sta tes Dist ri c tCo ur tf o r the No r the r n Di s t r i c to fI l l i no i s o n J une 1 9, 2 00 9. Re m o va l was e ff ec ted u nd erthe M u lti p arty, M ultiforum Trial Jurisd iction A ct (M M T JA ), w hi ch, subj ect to cer tai n condi ti ons, gr ants di str i ct c ou rt s o ri gi nal j uri sdic ti on o verci vi l act i ons ar i si ng fro m a sing l e ac ci den t i nv o l vinga t l ea st7 5 f at al i ti es , wh ere m i ni m aldi ver si ty exi sts am ong the a dvers e par ti es. 28 U
. S. C. § 1 369. Three o fthe si x case s r em ove d un der the M M TJA w er e v ol untaril y di sm i sse d. The thre e r em aining ac tions w ere assigne d to the H on. Sam ue l D erYe g hi ay an, the Hon. M i l to n I
. S ha dur a nd the Hon.

2 3 W ay ne R. Ander se n. 4 A pri m ar y purpose o fthe M M TJA w as to c on so l i date m u ltip le c as es aris in g ou t o f a sin gle d isa st er . See H. R. R ep . N o. 10 6-2 76 , at 2 00 ( 20 02 ) (C on f. Re p .); Wal l ac ev. La
. Citiz e ns Pr op. Ins . Corp. , 444 F.3d 697, 702 (5th C ir. 2006); Casev. A NPA C La. Ins . Co. , 4 6 6 F
. S up p. 2 d 7 8 1 , 7 9 4 ( E. D. L a. 20 06 ); Pass a v. D erderi an , 308 F. Su p p . 2d 43 , 53 (D .R .I. 2 0 0 4 )
. C o n s i s t e n t wi th th a t p u r p o s e , d e f e n d a n t, TheN o. 09
- 3204 3 Bo eingCo m pan y, fi l ed a m otion f o r r ea ss i g nm en t an d c o ns o l i da t i o n o n J ul y 6 , 2 0 0 9 , i n the p r e s e ntc a s e under LocalRule 40
. 4 o fthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. That r ul e en ab l es a de f en dan t to fi le s ucha mot i o n wi ththe j udg e be f o r e w ho m the l o wes t- number ed ca se o fthe cl aim ed r el ate d set ofcas es i s pending
. On J uly8, 20 09, the pl ai nti ff s co nsented t o Boei n g’s p ending m oti on f or co ns o l i dat i o n a nd r ea ss i gnm en t. U nfo r tu na te l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t r ul e o n tha t m o ti o n. I n s t e a d , o n Au g u s t2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , a p p r o xi m at e l y t wo m onths after r em ova l, J ud ge Der- Yeghi aya n sua s ponte re m anded the case to the Cir cui t Court o fCookCounty. H e r e a s o n ed th at th e “ re c or d d oe s n ot refle c t t h at all th e defen dan ts c o ns en te d i n at i m ely fashi o n f o r the re m ov al b efo re th e c as e w as rem ov ed to Fe d er a l C ou rt .” Re l y i ngo n N o rthern Illino is G a s C o . v . A irco In du s. G a ses, A D ivis ion of Air co, Inc. , 6 76 F
. 2d 27 0, 2 72 ( 7th C i r . 1 98 2) , the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that the rem ova l to federa l cour t had be en defecti ve, since “[ a] l l defendants m ust j o i n i n a r e mo v a l p e t i t i o n i no r d e r t o e ff e c tr e mo v a l
. ” As a co ro l l ar y, al l pending m oti ons w er e “ str i cken as m o o t. ” The de f en dan ts a ppea l thi s o r der, whi chthe pla i nti ff s hav e c hose n not to defe nd
. S i nce the di str i ct c o u r td i d n o th a v e th e p o wer t o e n t e r s u c h a n o r d e r, we vac at e i t. Be f o r e we e xpl ain the b as i s f o r thi s dec i si o n, ho wev er, we m us t addr es s th e que st i o n o fj ur i sdi ct i o n. A cas ual r eadi ng o fS ecti on 14 47(d) m i ght s ugges t that w e lack ju r isd iction to cons ider th e d istri ct cou rt’s order. This provi si on s tat es that an “ order re m anding a ca se to the S tat e co urt f ro m wh i ch i t was r em ove d i s not4 N o. 09
- 3204
re vi ew abl e o n appeal o r othe rw ise, exce pt thatan o rder re m anding a ca se to the S tat e co urt f ro m wh i ch i t was re m ove d pu rsu an t t o sect i on 1 443 ofthi s t i tl e s hal l be r e v i e wa b l e b y a pp e a l o r o the r wi se. ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 4 4 7 ( d) (em p ha sis add ed ). I n th e pres en t case, the d ist r ic t cou rt re m anded under S ecti on 1 447( c) and not Se ction 14 43. H owever, we have previ ousl y e xplai ned that appell ate r ev i ew i s po ss ibl e wher e th e di st r i ct co urt’s r emand “f al l s o utsi de the author i ty of § 14 47( c)
. ” In reCont i ne nt al Cas. , Co. , 2 9 F
. 3 d 2 9 2 , 2 9 4 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 )
. We c a n “ de c i de w h et h er a d ist ric t c ou rth as th e p ow er to d o w h at it did, al though w e cannot exam i ne w hether a p ar ti cul ar exer ci se ofpow erwas proper . ” Id. T hu s , the 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 447( d) proh ibi ti on o n appell ate
- cour t r evi ew o f re m and o rder s does not apply to re m and o rd er s t hat w er e outsi de the dist ri ct cour t’ s sta tutor y p ow er under 28 U
. S. C
. § 1447(c). I n the p resen t case , th e d istri ct court lack e d st atu tory p ow er to enter a rem an d ord e r . Ev en i f th e d istri ct cou rt w er e c or re c t t h at a d e f ec t in rem ov al h ad oc c u rre d , th is i s m er el y a pro ceduraldefect. M i dl oc k v. Appl eVac at i ons Wes t, Inc. , 406 F.3 d 45 3, 45 5 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); M cM ahon v. Bunn- O

-M a tic C o rp. , 150 F.3d 651 , 653 (7th C ir. 1998). Su c h d efe c ts are w aiv ed if a p ar ty d oe s n ot b rin g a tim ely m ot ion to rem an d th e c as e t o s ta te co u rt . 28 U .S.C . § 1 4 4 7 ( c ) ( r e qu i r i ngtha ta mo t i o n t o r e man d “ b e m a de w i thi n 30 days a fterthe fi l i ng o ft h e n ot i ce o fr em ova l und erse cti on 1 446 (a)” )
. W e hav e pr evi ousl y hel d that “afterthe 30 d ays have expi re d a di str i ct j ud ge m ay not re m and on it s o w n m oti on f ornon-j uri sdic ti onalpro bl em s. ” Cont i ne nt al Cas
. Co. , 2 9 F
. 3d at2 95
. I n the pr es en tN o. 09
- 3204 5
case , no partyfi l ed a m oti on withi n 30 days. A s a r es ult, eve n i f the “def ect i n the re m ova l proce ss could have j us ti fi ed a r emand
. . . b ec au se 3 0 day s pas se d wi th o ut prot est

— and the pro bl em does noti m peri l subj ect- m att er j uri sdic ti on

— the c ase i s i n federa l co urt to sta y. ” D oev. GTE C o rp. , 3 47 F.3d 65 5, 65 7 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); see also In re Cont i ne nt al Cas
. Co. , 2 9 F
. 3d at 294- 95; Ell e nb urg v . Sp ar t an M otors Ch assis, Inc. , 519 F.3d 1 9 2, 198-200 ( 4th Cir. 2008); Whol eHe al t h Chi r oprac t i c & We l l ne s s , Inc . v. H um ana M e d. P lan, Inc. , 25 4 F
. 3d 1317, 13 18- 21 ( 11th Cir
. 20 01) ; P agev. C ity of Southfi el d, 45 F.3 d 12 8, 13 2-3 4 (6th C ir. 19 95 ); M ani ar v. FD IC, 979 F.2d 78 2, 78 5-8 6 (9 th C ir. 19 92 ); FD I C v. Lo yd, 955 F.2d 316, 321-22 (5th Cir. 1992); Ai r - S h i e l d s , Inc . v. Full am , 8 9 1 F
. 2 d 6 3 , 6 3

- 6 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 9 )
. S i nc e a ny pro cedu ra l defect w as w ai ved, the dist ri ct c ourtl acke d pow erto re m and the ca se on that ba si s. Altho ug h the v al i di tyo fthe r emov ali s no t r el ev an t f o r j ur i sdi ct i o na l re as o ns to ourdi spo si ti o n ofthe pr es en t a p p eal, i t bears n oting th at no proc ed ura l d efects w ere in fact pres en t. I t i s i n d e ed true th at valid rem oval generally req u ire s t h e u n an im ou s c on se n t o f all d efe n d an ts . See Wolf v. Kenne lly, 574 F.3d 40 6, 40 9-1 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Th is g e ne r a l r ul e f o l l o ws fr o m t he lang uag e o f2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 441( a) , wh i ch pro vi des that“[ e] xcept as otherwis e express l y provi ded by A ct o fCongr ess , any ci vi l act i on bro ught i n a S tat e co urt ofwh ich the dis tr i ct c ourt s o f the Unite d Sta tes h ave or i ginal j uri sdic ti on, m ay be re m ove d by the defe n d a n t or the de fe ndan ts .” (em p h as is add ed). W e have i nter prete d the i tal i ci zed l anguage to m ea n th at all d efe n d an ts m u st c on se n t to re m ov al. Se eD oe, 34 7 F
. 3d at65 7. H owever, the prese nt cas e was6 N o. 09
- 3204 not re m ove d und er28 U .S.C . § 14 41( a) ; i t was r em ove d und erthe M M TJA (2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 369)
. S ecti on 1 44 1(e ) ( 1) provi des that“ a d ef

en d a nt
. . . may r emov e . . . i fthe ac tio n co u ld h av e b ee n br ou gh t . . . u n d er se c tio n 13 69 .” (em p ha sis add ed ). I n sum m ati on, we have j uri sdic ti on to consi der whether th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th a d p o we r t o o r der re m a n d a n d we concl ud e that i t di d not. W e a l so obs er ve that the di str i ct cour t was i n f act m i sta ken in b eli evi ng tha t there was a d efe c t in rem ov al. This l eave s us w i th j ust o ne m or e di fficul ty. A t o ra l ar gum ent, co unsel i nstr ucted us o n the disa rr aye d n at ure ofthe und er l yi ng pro ceedi ngs, gi ven that three d ifferent law su its based on th e sam e accid en t and pu rpo r te dl y i nv o l vingthe s ame l eg ali ssue s ar e be i ng l i ti gat ed i n fro nt o fthr ee diff er ent j ud ges . To c om pli cate m at te rs further, the case pre sentl y b efor e J ud ge A nd e r s e n ha s b e e n s t a y e d pe nd i ng the o ut c o me of th e cur r en t appe al, whi l e J udg e S ha dur ha s den i ed th e defe nd a nt s ’ r e qu e s t f o r a s t a y . Co un s e l a dv i s e d us a to ra l ar gum ent th at w e co uld a m el i or ate the si tuati on o n re m and by co nsol i dati ng the thr ee acti ons . H e s ugges ted thato ur Ci rc u it R u le 3 6 m i ght e nabl e us to do so , th o ug h h e co nc ede d tha t he was unabl e to po i ntt o a ny pr ec ede nttha t su ppo r ts hi s co nt en ti o n. O u r sea rch ofpri orcas e l aw has been no m or e frui tfu l, though we w oul d be hes i tant to or der c onso l i dati on re gar dle ss, si nce t w o ofthe thre e r el evantcas es ar e no t now befor e us and w e d o not have the be nefi t o fup-t o- date br i efi nga nd a r g um en t f r o m a l l af f ec te d pa r ti es o n theN o. 09
- 3204 7

Ofc ou r s e , a c ompl i c a t i ng f a c ti s tha tJ udg e S ha dur h a s a l r e a dy 5 en t er t ai ne d and de ni ed a Rul e 40
. 4 m ot i on fi l ed by t he defen d an ts, a s t he case p en d ing b efore h im b eca m e the low estnum bered one by virtue ofJ ud ge D er- Y eghiayan’ s im prop er re m and o rde r. W e do notknow t he b as i s f or thi s det er m i nat i on, as the doc ke te ntry m er el y i ndi c at es thatthe c our tden i ed the m otio n for “ rea son s stated at or al arg u m en t.” H ow eve r, i tw ou ld se em thatJ ud ge Shadu r f ound the cas es at le asts om ew hat re l a t e d, s i n c e i to r de r e d t h a td i s c o v e r y c o n du c t e d i n fr o n tof J udge Ander s enc on s t i t ut e di s c ove ry f or the pur pos e ofthe a ct io n p en d in g b efo re h im
. There m ay be concern that the do ct ri ne ofcol lat eral es topp el af f ect s the pend ing Ru le 40. 4 m oti on before Ju d g e DerYeghi aya n, s i nc e Boei ng h ad a ful l and f ai r oppor t uni t y t o a rg ue j ust such a m oti on in anotherf orum ( b efo re Jud ge Shadu r)
. It m ig h t be poss ible to li ti gate an i ss ue f or purp oses ofcol lat eral es to p p el v ia a m o tio n to co n so lid a te . See, e . g. , B u rs te in v . R u m b a ll, (co n tin u ed ...) m att er . But eve n i fwe w er e of t h e opi ni on that Rul e 3 6 gave us the po wer t o c o ns o l i dat e th e th r ee r el ev an t case s, we w ou ld s ee no r eas on t o exer ci se that author i ty here
. The N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fIl l i noi s has a m echani sm i n pl ac e f o r de al i ngwi ths uchs i tu at i o ns . On rem an d, the prese nt cas e wil l ag ai n be bef ore J ud ge Der- Yeghi aya n an d the Rul e 40
. 4 m o ti o n fi l ed by defen dan t, The Bo eing C o. , on July 8, 2009, and cons en ted to by t h e plaintiff s tw o days l ate r, w i l l re m ai n pend i ng. On r em and, Jud ge Der- Yeghi aya n shoul d p ro m ptl y a dd re ss thi s m oti on an d, i fne ce ss ar y, c o ns ul t wi thJ udg es S ha dur a nd A nd er sen t o deter m i ne wh etherr eas si gnm ent i s a pp ro pri ate . 58 N o. 09
- 3204

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 297 Fed. A pp ’ x. 918, 920 ( 11th Cir
. 2008). H ow ever, col lat eral estop p el ap p lies on ly to a cou rt’ s d eterm ina tion o f fact tha t is n e c es sa ry to its ju d g m en t. SeeHarr el l v. U.S. Post al Ser vi ce, 445 F. 3d 9 13 , 92 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 )
. J udge Sh adur ’ s di s c re t i ona ry r ul i ng nott o gr anta Rule 40
. 4 m ot i on c oul d have be enf ounde d on a var i ety ofdet er m i nat i ons , m any o f w hi c h woul d have no bearing on a s ub se quent m o tio n to r eas si gn b ef ore J ud ge D erY eg h ia y a n . Cf

. Je nn i ng s v . R os cr ow , 1 9 8 7WL 1 1 3 4 1 , a t* 3 ( N. D. Il l. M a y 22 , 19 8 7 ).

5- 17- 10 F o r the f o r eg o i ngr ea so ns, the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r emand or d er o f A ugust 2 0, 20 09 i s V ACATED an d th e c as e is r emande d t o the d i st r i ctc o ur t f o r pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t w i th thi s o pini on. The di str i ct c ourtshould endeavo r prom ptl y t o rul e upon the pending Rule 40. 4 m oti on t o con so lid ate and re ass i gn, wh i ch w as fi l ed on J uly6, 20 09. I n con side ring the m erits of th is m otion, w e w ou ld en cou rage the dist ri ct c ourtto be m i nd ful ofthe benefi ts of c o n s o l i d a t i o n e n v i s i o n e d i n th e MMTJ A.