Davis et al v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 38

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER (MDL 875) by MDL Panel. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/18/2013: # 1 Docket sheet) (mclS, COURT STAFF).

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (NO. VI)

DLNo. 875

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has, in the actions on this conditional remand or er: ( 1) severed
all claims for punitive or exemplary damages; and (2) advised the Panel that oordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with respect to the remaining claims have been co leted and that
remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1407(a), is appropriate
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims in the action(s) on this conditiona remand order
except the severed damages claims be remanded to its/their respective transferor c urt(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 ofthe Rules ofProcedure ofth United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transfere clerk for filing
shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opp sition with the
Clerk of the Panel within this 7- day period, the stay will be continued until furt er order of the
Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Cler for the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furni h the Clerk for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with a stipulation or designation of the conten s of the record
to be remanded and all necessary copies of any pleadings or other matter filed so a to enable said
Clerk to comply with the order of remand.
Inasmuch as no objection is
pending at this time, the
stay is lifted.

FOR THE PANEL:

Sep 17, 2013
CLERK'S OFFICE
UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

THEREIIftl

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (NO. VI)

MDL No. 875

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE
WSl: ~ C.A.NO.

TRANSFEROR

WSl: lliYa C.A.NO.

PAE

2

12-60141

CAN

3

12-01600

PAE

2

12-60135

CT

3

12-00177

* PAE

2

09-64308

CAN

3

08-00228

*-denotes that the civil action has been severed.

CASE CAfTION
TURNER et al v. GENER L ELECTRONIC
COMPANY et al
ZEPPEIRI v. GENERAL LECTRIC
COMPANY et al
John L. Davis v. General

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

Consolidated Under
MDL DOCKET NO. 875

LARSEN

Transferred from th~ Northern
District of Califorr~ a
Case No. 08-00228
:
l

FILED

v.

I

SEP- 5 2013

i

E.D. PA No. 09-6430~

VARIOUS DEFENDANTS

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Cle,~,
9'1
Dep, 0IWII\

;

i

I

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

!

I

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2013, it

Is

hereby

I

ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case

MDL-

875 Administrative Order No. 18, No. 01-875 (E.D. Pa.

301

2009), ECF No. 6197, the Court finds that, as to the
captioned case:
a.) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875
Orders 12 and 12A

(~the

MDL 875 website's AdmiQ'strative

b.) Parties have completed their obligations

the Rule

16 order issued by the Court (see ECF No. 6).
c.) All discovery has been completed.
d.) The Court has adjudicated all pending motions,/ including
l
!

dispositive motions.

i

e.) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been

exha~sted

this time as to the remaining viable defendant.

at

\

f.) The Court finds that this case is prepared foj trial
1

without delay once on the transferor court's docke , subject
to any trial-related motions in limine (including
challenges) .
g.) According to Plaintiff, the remaining viable D fendant
for trial is:
General Electric Company
h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, a

claims

for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by

he MDL-

875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
I

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-ca~ ioned
case should be REMANDED to the United States District

q urt

the Northern District of California for resolution of

~

for

1 matters

i
'

pending within this case except punitive damages. 1

;

Alternatively, parties have seven (7) days within

I
I hich

to

consent to a trial before an Article III or Magistrate I udge in
I

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In such an even1

if

consent is granted, a trial will be scheduled within s~ ty (60)
I
days, on a date convenient to the parties in Philadelp~·a,
I

The Court finds that the issue of punitive d mages
must be resolved at a future date with regard to the e~ ire MDL875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or e~ mplary
damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained! y the
MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I ee In re
Collins, 233 F. 3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is respq sible
public policy to give priority to compensatory claims ~
exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conse
more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold
damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts, 17~
(3d Cir. 1999).
I
1

g
;

2

'
;

'
'
i

I

Pennsylvania, and the Suggestion of Remand will be vacalted.
I
I

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM
Updated September 5, 2013

To: Transferor Judge
From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875
Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case tha h

been transferred from the Eastern Dis

lvania

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 ~ h ://www. aed.uscourts. ov/
2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processi
policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases fo
conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transfero
the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so request
parties).
Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

More information about the history of MDL 875 can be found on the Eastern Dis 'ct of
Pennsylvania's MDL 875 website at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875a.am. dditionally,
all Administrative Orders issued in this litigation (including current Orders and th se no longer
in effect) can be found at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.as.p.
Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presidi · Officer on
4

•
l
!

i
substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (s h ://www. aed.usco
. ov/
This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case cap
matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends
to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those alre!
by the MDL-875 Court.

dl8 n.as ).
on, subject
spreadsheet
y addressed

Other options available to assist the Transferor Court with legal research include s~ chable
databases created by LexisNexis and Westlaw. Directions on how to access these 4• tabases can
i
be found on http://www.paed.uscourts.&ov/mdl875n.asp.
!

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court
i

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with~
relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may~ 'se.
i

You may contact the Presiding Judicial Officer (Judge_Eduardo_Robreno@paed.~~ courts.gov),
the MDL 875law clerk ([e-mail] or (267) 299-742~, or the
j
Clerk's Office [phone]) for further assistance.

Intercircuit Assianment Committee
1

The Intercircuit Assignment Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the lead rship of Judge
J. Frederick Motz of the District of Maryland, can assist in the identification and a~ ignment of a
senior judge from another District who is ready, willing and able to preside over t4 trial of this
case. If appropriate, please contact Judge Motz at Judge_J_Frederick_Motz@md4 uscourts.gov
!
or (41 0) 962-0782.

5