Cpmnedinute Onder Form (06197)

United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois (9

Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1966 DATE 9/23/2002
CASE Christine Champlin et al. Vs. Burlington Northern etc. et al.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
ion bei |.
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) im} Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) ag Brief in support of motion due

(3) o Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) oO Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(7) Q Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a)(1) [ FRCP41(a)(2).

(do) =f (Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendants’ motion to transfer is
denied without prejudice to its renewal. Status hearing reset to October 16, 2002 at 9:15am. Status hearing
set for September 26, 2002 at 9:15am. is stricken.

ald (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,
No notices required. number of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. SEP 25 2002
Notified counsel by telephone. ste docketed
v | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
courtroom
WAH deputy’s
initials :
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office naling deputy tals



eg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE CHAMPLIN and CHARLIE B.
ROMSTAD, as joint personal representatives of
the estate of STELLA RIEHL, deceased,

Plaintiffs,

vs. No, 02 C 1966

CORPORATION, a corporation, THE
BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation,
HERZOG CONTRACTING CORPORATION,
a corporation, and NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION, a corporation
d/b/a AMTRAK,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

An Amtrak train derailed near Nodawey, Iowa, on March 17, 2001, and Stella Riehl,
a Colorado resident, was fatally injured. The suit was brought here. Because Illinois has no
relationship to the accident three of the four defendants move to transfer the case to Colorado
or the Southern District of lowa. That motion is, for now, denied, but without prejudice to its
renewal.

The Northern District of Illinois has precious little to do with this litigation other than
that the train originated in Chicago and a National Transportation Safety Board safety
engineer, Cyril E. Gura, who is a or the signatory on several reports, lives here. The origin of
the trip is, however, undisputed and irrelevant, and Mr. Gura could presumably be called

upon to go anywhere. But no other place is self-evident as the most convenient place to try the

\O


ed

—_

No. 02 C 1966 Page2

case. The jury will have to know something about Stella Riehl, as part of plaintiffs’ damage
case, and that probably requires testimony from a person or persons from Colorado, but
plaintiffs are apparently prepared to bring people here for that purpose. The 241 passengers
and the crew are from all over, but it is very uncertain that any of them need to testify.
Plaintiffs’ case does not rest on whether there had been a rough or bumpy ride. The rescue
workers would appear to add nothing. It is undisputed that the train derailed and Rich! was
killed.

Itis apparently undisputed that the train derailed because a replacement rail fractured.
Perhaps the testimony of those who installed the rail will be relevant, but that is questionable.
Plaintiffs do not appear to claim negligent installation. Rather, they claim that the rail was
defective. The pieces of the rail were sent to Washington, D.C. and are now in Kansas.

This case may well end up as a battle of experts opining why the rail fractured. It is too
early to tell. Perhaps this district is a convenient place because of its being a transportation
hub. Or perhaps our preliminary views are misguided, and a number of witnesses from Iowa
will be necessary. Until, however, we have a better understanding of the actual disputes, and

with what evidence the parties will seek to resolve those disputes, we cannot say that the case

Heme 8. Ylora—

MAI JAMES B. MORAN
si

or Judge, U. S. District Court
SB 22, 2002.

should be transferred.