Koloen et al v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 60

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER by the MDL Panel. (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet) (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2013)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

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

MDLNo.875

(SEE A'ITACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has, in the actions on this conditional remand order: ( 1) severed
all claims for punitive or exemplary damages; and (2) advised the Panel that coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with respect to the remaining claims have been completed 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 conditional remand order
except the severed damages claims be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 ofthe Rules ofProcedure ofthe United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal ofthis order to the transferee clerk for filing
shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the
Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the
Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk 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 furnish the Clerk for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record
to be remanded and all necessary copies of any pleadings or other matter filed so as to enable said
Clerk to comply with the order of remand.
Inasmuch as no objection is
pending at this time, the
stay is lifted.

Mar 26,2013
CLERK"S OFFICE
UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT UTIGATION

FOR THE PANEL:

~~Jeffery N. Liithi
Clerk of the Panel

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

MDL No. 875

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE
DJSI DIY. C.A.NO.
PAE

TRANSFEROR

DJSI DIY. C.A.NO.

CASE CAPTION
CONROY et al v. A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY
FARRIS v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al
CRATER et al v. 3M COMPANY et al
Johnh Giraudo v. General Electric Co., et al.
DONNELLY v. AW CHESTERTON
COMPANY etal
JAKUBOWSKI v. ACANDS INC et al
SERSTAD v. THE ANCHOR PACKING
COMPANY etal

11-67277

CAC

2

11-05457

PAE 2
PAE 2
PAE 2

09-91454
11-66775
09-64057

ILN
NYS
CAN

1
1
3

09-01450
11-03588
08-o4416

PAE

2

11-67779

sc

2

11-03074

PAE

2

10-67831

WIE

2

99-01006

PAE

*

2

2

09-60165

WIW 3

90-00934

* - denotes that the civil action has been severed.

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
Transferred from the Northern
District of California,
Case No. 08-04416

FILED

GIRAUDO
v.

MAR II ZOI3
.

MICHAELE.~a...D. PA No. 2:09-cv-64057
By

VARIOUS DEFENDANTS

--DeP.QIIdc

SUGGJST:ION

or RDW1P

AND NOW, this 13th day of

~ch,

2013, it is hereby

ORDBRBD that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL875 Administrative Order No. 18, No. 01-875 (E.D. Pa. April 30,
2009), ECF No. 6197, the Court finds that, as to the abovecaptioned case:
a.) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative
Orders 12 and 12A

(~the

MDL 875 website's Administrative

Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl87Sd.asp).
b.) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule
16 order issued by the Court

(~

ECF No. 9).

c.) All discovery has been completed.
d.) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions,
including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings
include:
i.

Certain motions for reconsideration were
denied as untimely (ECF No. 47).
1

e.) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at
this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f.) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial
without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject
to any trial-related motions in limine (including Daubert
challenges).
g.) According to Plaintiffs, the remaining viable Defendant
for trial is Bath Iron Works Corp.
h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims
for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL875 Court.

~Fed.

R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned
case should be

~BD

to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California for resolution of all matters
pending within this case except punitive damages. 1
Alternatively, parties in the below-listed cases have seven
(7) days within which to consent to a trial before an Article III

The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages
must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or exemplary
damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained by the
MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ~ In re
Collins, 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is responsible
public policy to give priority to compensatory claims over
exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conservation
more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold punitive
damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts, 178 F.3d 181
(3d Cir. 1999).
2

or Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In

such an event, if consent is granted, a trial will be scheduled
within sixty (60) days, on a date convenient to the parties in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Suggestion of Remand will be
vacated.
AND IT IS SO ORDBRBD.

/1.,{ '(, 1!·. ~
/
v-· ,

3

BDOARDO C. llOBRBNO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM
Updated September 5, 2012

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 ease that has been transferred (rom the Eastern District of eennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's

Administrative Order No. 18 00 bttp:/!www,paeci.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.as.p).
Specific information regarding the history of a specific case while it was in the MDL 875 Court
can be found in the Suggestion of Remand (above) that the MDL Court submitted to the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in connection with its Order.
Histoty of MDL 875, In re: Asbeltos Products Liability LltiJation

MDL 875, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, involves issues relating to personal injury
damages caused by asbestos products. It currently consists of about 6,000 cases transferred by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which has been transferring cases to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania since 1991. Each case typically consists of claims by multiple plaintiffs against
multiple defendants. Since its inception, the litigation has involved more than I 00,000 cases and
up to ten million claims, including land-based and maritime claims ("MARDOC").
Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (K.e http://www,paed.uscoutts.gov/mdl875d.asp) in
2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The
policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement
conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in
the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the
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 District of
Pennsylvania's MDL 875 website at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875a.asp. Additionally, all
Administrative Orders issued in this litigation (including current Orders and those no longer in
effect) can be found at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp.
Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on
4

substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (a http:l/www.paed.uscourts.aov/rrull875n.83ll).
This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject
matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet
to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed
by the MDL-875 Court.
Other options available to assist the Transferor Court with legal research include searchable
databases created by LexisNexis and Westlaw. Directions on how to access these databases can be
found on httP://www,paed.USCQurts.aov/mdl875n.asp.

Contad information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters
relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.
You may contact the Presiding Judicial Officer ([e-mail]),
the MDL 875law clerk ([e-mail] or(267) 299-7422}, or the Clerk's
Office ((267} 299-7012) for further assistance.
Iaterclreuit Aasipment Committee

The Intercircuit Assignment Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the leadership of Judge
J. Frederick Motz of the District of Maryland. can assist in the identification and assignment of a
senior judge from another District who is ready, willing and able to preside over the trial of this
case. If appropriate, please contact Judge Motz at [e-mail]
or [phone].

5