necessary inquiries before entering a final transfer order. See A.H. Robbins v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d
994, 1015-16 (4" Cir. 1986) (Piccinin). The provisional order brings all the pending suits before the
transferee court “for the time being”. Piccinin, 788 F.2d at 1015.

This issue was recently addressed by the Seventh Circuit for the defendant Automakers. See
In re General Motors Corp, No. 02-1273, Feb. 15, 2002. The Automakers also received a
provisional order by the Delaware District Court. Following the provisional order, the Southern
District of Iinois court remanded several asbestos litigation cases against the Automakers to the
Illinois state court. The Automakers filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Seventh Circuit
seeking a recall of the remand. The Seventh Circuit, citing the above cases, granted the petition,
finding that the provisional order transferred the cases to the Delaware District Court. Accordingly,
the Southern District of Illinois court did not have jurisdiction to remand the cases to the Illinois state
court.

As in the Automakers’ case, the Provisional Order in this case effectively transferred the
cases pending in this Court to the Delaware District Court. Therefore, this Court no longer has
jurisdiction over these cases and is not authorized to remand the cases. Furthermore, because these
cases were already before the Delaware District Court, and that court determined that the federal
courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, these cases are subject to that February 8" order. However,
that order has been appealed and has been stayed by the Third Circuit Appellate Court.

Based on the above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and/or Abst tion is denied.

Dated: Shey 24 200 2 7) Urs ph

Unites . DARRAH
Unites tates District Judge


Ame Minute oder Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Oth
or Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 1049 DATE 5/22/2002
CASE In Re: IN RE: GARLOCK, INC.
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

of the motion being presented.]

(1)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

4 o Ruling/Hearingon___setfor___at

(5) im Status hearing[he!d/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_—ssetfor___at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_—sat__

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on__ saat

(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]
CUFRCP4(m) O General Rule21 OOFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) om [Other docket entry] Status hearing held. Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Plaintiffs’

motion to remand and/or abstention is denied.

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

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff,

MAY 2% 2002

date docketed

Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. ocketing deputy ntals

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. yunas t ea |
4 dae mailed notice
courtroom pos y Z2Ee!
LG deputy's Ze Vd ese aaf
initials —_
Date/time received in., “<j |
central Clerk's Office a railing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT gueTM +
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 23 ws
EASTERN DIVISION wn
IN THE MATTER OF
IN RE GARLOCK, INC., et al. Case No. 02 C1049

weer

CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDING Judge John W. Darrah

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Several hundred asbestos personal injury cases have been filed and consolidated in the
Circuit Court of Cook County. See In Re: Asbestos Litigation, Circuit Court of Cook County
(Asbestos Litigation). Defendant, Honeywell Corporation (“Honeywell”), has removed twenty-seven
of the asbestos litigation to this Court. The twenty-seven cases have been consolidated for purposes
of pretrial proceedings. Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand and/or
Abstention.
I. Background

In December 2001, Honeywell began to remove claims involving asbestos-containing friction
products of the Asbestos Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 9027(a). Other defendants, such as DiamlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company,
and General Motors Corporation (“Automakers”), also removed claims involving the friction
products of the Asbestos Litigation.

On December 17, 2001, Honeywell filed a motion in the Delaware District Court to partially
withdraw a reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and to transfer the removed claims and causes
of action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 157(b)(5). Another defendant involved in the litigation, Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., had

S


previously filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware.

On December 19, 2001, the Delaware District Court issued an order in favor of Honeywell
that partially withdrew the reference and provisionally transferred the friction product claims to the
Delaware District Court (“the Provisional Order”). On January 4, 2002, the Delaware District Court
clarified the Provisional Order and extended the provisional transfer of friction product claims to
include claims that would have been subject to the Provisional Order but had not yet been removed
on the date of the Provisional Order.

On February 8, 2002, the Delaware District Court ruled that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the friction product claims, denied the motions to transfer the friction product
claims, and remanded the friction product claims to the state courts from which they were removed.
On February 11, 2002, the Automakers appealed the February 8" Order and sought an emergency
stay pending the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit
Appellate Court”), The Third Circuit Appellate Court granted the Automakers’ emergency motion
for a stay pending appeal on February 11, 2002.

On February 14, 2002, Honeywell filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Appellate
Court. On February 15, 2002, Honeywell filed a motion to stay, consolidate, and set a briefing
schedule in the Third Circuit Appellate Court. The Third Circuit Appellate Court granted
Honeywell’s motion for a stay pending appeal.

Defendant argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to remand this case in light of the
Delaware District Court’s Provisional Order that transferred these cases to that court.

A district court can enter a provisional transfer fixing venue before it and then conduct the