Case Name: In re AIR CRASH DISASTER AT DUARTE, CALIFORNIA ON JUNE 6, 1971
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-07-26
Citations: 346 F. Supp. 529
Docket Number: No. 106
Parties: In re AIR CRASH DISASTER AT DUARTE, CALIFORNIA ON JUNE 6, 1971.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 346
Pages: 529–532

Head Matter:
In re AIR CRASH DISASTER AT DUARTE, CALIFORNIA ON JUNE 6, 1971.
No. 106.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
July 26, 1972.
Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM , EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III , and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.
Although Judges Wisdom and Lord were not present at the hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

Opinion:
OPINION AND ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On June 6, 1971, a United States Marine Corps Phantom Jet fighter and a Hughes Air West DC-9 commercial airliner collided in mid-air near Duarte, California. The pilot of the Phantom Jet and the 44 passengers and five crew members aboard the DC-9 received fatal injuries. The radar intercept officer aboard the Phantom Jet is the sole survivor of the collision.
More than thirty actions arising out of this crash have been filed in the Central District of California and have been assigned to Judge Peirson M. Hall. Nine other civil actions are pending in the District of Utah and two in the Western District of Washington. On its own initiative the Panel ordered the parties to these actions to show cause why they should not be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On the basis of the responses to- the Panel's order and the arguments presented at the hearing, we hold that to further the convenience of the parties and witnesses and to promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation the actions must be transferred to the Central District of California for pretrial proceedings.
All parties responding to the Panel's order to show cause concede that the Central District of California is the most appropriate district for transfer under Section 1407. We agree. The mid-air collision out of which these actions arose occurred in that district and both planes involved in the collision originally departed from locations within that district. In addition, the lone survivor of the crash and the majority of witnesses reside there. Furthermore, the majority of the litigation has been filed there, a document depository has been established and all parties have been participating in the discovery program being supervised by Judge Hall in that district.
The responding plaintiffs in the Utah and Washington actions argue, however, that any transfer should be limited to discovery relating to the issue of liability. They contend that discovery relating to the issue of damages is local in nature and does not concern questions of fact common to the other cases.
Section 1407(a) authorizes the Panel to "separate any claim, cross-claim, counter-claim, or third-party claim" from the remainder of the transferred action and to remand such claims to the transferor district. See, e. g., In re Hotel Telephone Charge Antitrust Litigation, 341 F.Supp. 771 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1972); In re Penn Central Securities Litigation, 325 F.Supp. 309 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1971). It does not authorize the Panel to transfer one issue raised by a claim, such as liability, while remanding another issue raised by the same claim such as damages. For this reason we deny respondents' request. Cf. In re Antibiotic Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 299 F.Supp. 1403 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit., 1969); In re Air Crash Disaster at Greater Cincinnati Airport, 298 F.Supp. 353 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit., 1968). We also think it more conducive to effective judicial management to allow the transferee judge to determine whether and to what extent discovery on sepa rate issues is appropriate for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See, In re San Juan, Puerto Rico Air Crash Disaster, 316 F.Supp. 981 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit., 1970).
It is therefore ordered that all actions listed on the attached Schedule A pending in the District of Utah and the Western District of Washington be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Central District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Peirson M. Hall for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 with the actions pending in that district.
SCHEDULE A
District of Utah DOCKET NO. 106
Coy M. Morris, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. C-73-72
Marian C. Dunn, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. C-74-72
Alice W. Mangum, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. C-75-72
Jeanne Pyke, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. C-76-72
Jeanne M. Pyke, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. C-77-72
Afton G. Allen, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Ciyil Action No. C-78-72
Virginia H. Pyke, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. C-80-72
Janet T. Schoenhals, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. C-81-72
John Jay Garcia, et al. v. United States of America Civil Action No."C-92-72
Central District of California
Margaret M. Reeves, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-1425-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Glenda Gabel, etc. Civil Action No. 71—1431-PH
Howard Brand, et al. v. Hughes Air West, Inc. Civil Action No. 71-1465-PH
Norene E. Forgy, et al. v. Hughes Air West, Inc. Civil Action No. 71-1555-PH
Glenda Gabel, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71—1595-PH
James D. Dean, M. D. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-1822-PH
Albert Denegal, Jr., etc. v. Hughes Air West, Inc. Civil Action No. 71-1996-PH
Ralph D. Miller, et al. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-2021-PH
Chase Apgar, et al. v. Hughes Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-2253-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Afton G. Allen, etc. Civil Action No. 71-2334-PH
SCHEDULE A
In the Matter of the Petition of Janet T. Schoenhals, et al. Civil Action No. 71—2335-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of John Jay Garcia, etc. Civil Action No. 71-2336-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Virginia H. Pyke, etc. Civil Action No. 71-2337-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Jeanne M. Pyke, etc. Civil Action No. 71-2338-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Jeanne F. Pyke, etc. Civil Action No. 71-2339-PH
Helen F. Fennell, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-2528-PH
Glen Leroy Hunter, et al. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-2791-PH
In the Matter of the Petition of Alice Wilkinson Mangum, etc. Civil Action No. 71-2796-PH
Otto Conrad Davidson, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-2831—PH
Cynthia Kalbfleiseh, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 71-2878-PH
Michael Rene Garcia, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 71-2932—PH
Glenda Gabel, etc. v. The United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. 72-1—PH
John D. McCorden, et al. v. Hughes Air Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 72-25-PH
Daniel Subic, et al. v. Hughes Air West, Inc. Civil Action No. 72-54-PH
Elizabeth W. Kaufman, etc. v. United States of America, et al. .Civil Action No. 72-344-PH
Lee C. Potter, et al. v. Hughes Air Corp., etc. Civil Action No. 72-450-PH
Judith V. Wilkerson, etc. v. Hughes Air Corp., et al. Civil Action No. 72-469-PH
Norene E. Forgy, et al. v. The United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. 72-633-PH
Michael Rene Garcia, etc. v. United States of America Civil Action No. 72-635-PH
Helen E. Fennell, etc. v. The United States of America, et al. Civil Action No. 72-875-PH
Howard Brand, et al. v. The United States of America Civil Action No. 72-924-PH
Western District of Washington
Carol Nicolay, etc. v. United States Civil Action 262-72
Etta Mae Bruner, etc. v. United States of America Civil Action No. 329-72C2