Mann et al v. United States of America
Filing
17
TRANSFER ORDER. CASE TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California. MDL No. 2532. (Robles, S)
Case MDL No. 2532 Document 57 Filed 06/04/14
Case3:14-md-02532-MMC Document1 Filed06/18/14Page 1 ofof 4
Page1 4
I hereby certify that the annexed
instrument is a true and correct copy
of the original on file in my office.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
ATTEST:
RICHARD W. WIEKING
Clerk, U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
by:
Deputy Clerk
Date: 18 June 2014
IN RE: YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
HANTAVIRUS LITIGATION
MDL No. 2532
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the United States of America moves to
centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of California. This litigation currently consists of four
actions pending in the Eastern District of California, the Northern District of California, and the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, as listed on Schedule A.1 These actions involve claims for personal
injury and wrongful death arising from a hantavirus outbreak in Yosemite National Park in the
summer of 2012.
The concessionaire defendants2 support centralization. They and the United States
alternatively support centralization in the Northern District of California, should the Eastern District
of California be unavailable as a transferee district. In contrast, plaintiffs in three of the actions
oppose centralization, as do the plaintiffs in one of the potential tag-along actions. Two of these
plaintiffs alternatively support transfer to the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in the
fourth action on the motion (who are also plaintiffs in the other potential tag-along action) take no
position on the merits of the Section 1407 motion, but if the motion is granted, they too support
transfer to the Northern District of California.
Plaintiff argue, inter alia, that centralization is unnecessary because any common factual
questions in these actions are not complex. We find, however, that not only will these actions involve
common questions with regard to the alleged negligence of the defendants, but it is anticipated that
the United States will assert jurisdictional defenses under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In
our experience, such defenses—in particular, the assertion of the “discretionary function” and
“independent contractor” exceptions to the FTCA—often entail complicated and lengthy discovery
practice. Such discovery will be common across all the actions.
1
The parties have notified the Panel of two additional related actions pending in the Eastern
District of California. These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions.
See Panel Rule 7.1.
2
The concessionaire defendants include: Delaware North Companies, Inc.; Delaware North
Companies Park and Resorts, Inc.; DNC Parks and Resorts at Yosemite, Inc.; and DNC Parks and
Resorts Reservations, Inc.
Case MDL No. 2532 Document 57 Filed 06/04/14
Case3:14-md-02532-MMC Document1 Filed06/18/14Page 2 ofof 4
Page2 4
-2Additionally, plaintiffs contend that they have agreed among themselves to cooperate and
coordinate discovery so as to avoid unnecessary duplication and inconvenience. Discovery, though,
already has involved numerous document requests, several depositions, and subpoenas of various
third-party witnesses—including three members of Congress. While we applaud any voluntary efforts
at coordinating the litigation made by counsel, we are not convinced in this instance that plaintiffs’
proposed discovery plan is a workable substitute for centralization. Transfer under Section 1407 has
the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can formulate a
pretrial program that allows discovery with respect to any non-common issues to proceed
concurrently with discovery on common issues, and it ensures that pretrial proceedings will be
conducted in a streamlined manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all the actions to
the overall benefit of the parties and the judiciary. See In re Royal Alliance, Inc., Sec. Litig., 856 F.
Supp. 2d 1339, 1340 (J.P.M.L. 2012).
Accordingly, on the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that
plaintiffs or their decedents were infected with hantavirus while staying in “Signature” tent cabins at
the Curry Village campsite in Yosemite National Park during the summer of 2012. Plaintiffs in all
the actions allege that the National Park Service and the concessionaire defendants failed to maintain
the Curry Village campsite properly so as to prevent the risk of infection by hantavirus, which is
carried by deer mice, and to warn park visitors of the risk of hantavirus exposure. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee district
for pretrial proceedings in this litigation. With the exception of plaintiffs in one action, all the parties
support transfer to this district, at least in the alternative. The Northern District of California is an
accessible and convenient forum—both for witnesses located in or near Yosemite National Park and
for parties located across the country. Moreover, by assigning this litigation to the Honorable Maxine
M. Chesney, we are selecting an experienced transferee judge who is not presently presiding over a
multidistrict litigation.
Case MDL No. 2532 Document 57 Filed 06/04/14
Case3:14-md-02532-MMC Document1 Filed06/18/14Page 3 ofof 4
Page3 4
-3IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern
District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Maxine M.
Chesney for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
__________________________________________
John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Charles R. Breyer
Sarah S. Vance
R. David Proctor
Case MDL No. 2532 Document 57 Filed 06/04/14
Case3:14-md-02532-MMC Document1 Filed06/18/14Page 4 ofof 4
Page4 4
IN RE: YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
HANTAVIRUS LITIGATION
MDL No. 2532
SCHEDULE A
Eastern District of California
MANN, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, C.A. No. 1:13-01827
Northern District of California
HARRISON, ET AL. v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT YOSEMITE, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:14-00451
BADANI, ET AL. v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:14-00591
Middle District of Pennsylvania
GARISTO, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:13-02611
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?