Huff et al v. Kaiser Ventures LLC et al

Filing 25

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER by The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 875. Case reopened. (Attachments: #(1) Civil Docket Sheet) (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

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

MDL No. 875

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has, in the actions on this conditional remand order: {l) 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 cmtjpleted 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 conditionaJ remand order
except the severed damages claims be remanded to its/their respective transferor cqurt(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferetj 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 furth'.er 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.

Sep 26, 2013
CLERK'S OFFICE
UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

FOR THE PANEL:

11£&
e ery . ut 1
Clerk of the Panel

ATRU.£ CGPY~ERTIFltll TO FROM T.IHE ~t:tt•
GArtO:
.\l"Tlil>l:

q

11'I f3

~>AT.~C1
~Rili rn~TR!C-T OF r'ENNS'ILVA'tW'
I
!

C
...T

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

MDL No. 875

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE
lllSI filY.t C.A.NO.
PAE 2 09-62940
PAE 2 09-91850

TRANSFEROR
illS.I~ C.A.NO.
CAN 3 08-00231
CAN 3 09-04605

PAE

2

09-92273

CAN

3

09-04842

PAE

2

10-61099

CAN

3

09-05649

PAE

2

11-67706

CAN

4

11-04475

*

PAE
PAE

2
2

11-63479
09-64068

ND
CAN

1
3

11-00019
08-04490

*-

denotes that the civil action has been severed.

CASE CAPTION
FARRIS v. WARREN PUMPS, LLC
JONES v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
WEAVER v. TODD PAClFIC SHIPYARDS
CORPORATION
SPILMOM v. GENERAL .ELECTRIC
COMPANY et al
ROY AL et al v. HUNTIN(JTON INGALLS
INCORPORATED et al
KROH v. ABEX CORPORATION et al
John 0. Robertson v. Kais~r Ventures Llc, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Consolidated Under
MDL DOCKET NO. 875

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

.

FILED

ROBERTSON

Transferred from the Northern
District of California
Case No. 08-04490

SEP 16 2013

v.
VARIOUS DEFENDANTS

MICHAELE.KUNi,Clerk E D PA No 09-64068
By
Dep. Clerk • •
•

SUGGESTION OF REMAND
AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2013, it is hereby
ORDERED 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 (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative
Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).
b.) Parties have completed thei.r obligations under the Rule
16 order issued by the Court (see 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.

The motion for summary judgment of defendant
Todd Shipyards Corporation was granted in
1

part and denied in part (ECF No. 139).
ii.

The motion for summary judgment of defendant
Huntington Ingalls was granted (ECF No. 128).

iii. The motion for summary judgment of defendant
Carrier Corporation was granted (ECF No.
129) .
iv.

Plaintiff's appeal of the Court's order
granting summary judgment to defendaht
Huntington Ingalls was dismissed by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit for failure to timely prosecute (ECF
No. 144).

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

D~ubert

challenges) .
g.) According to Plaintiff, the remaining viable Defendants
for trial are:
i.

General Electric Company

ii.

Puget Sound Commerce Center (f/k/a Todd
Shipyards Corporation)

h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed,

2

an~

claims

for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned
case should be REMANDED to the United States District Coutrt for
the Northern District of California for resolution of all matters
pending within this case except punitive damages. 1
Alternatively, parties have seven (7) days within which to
consent to a trial before an Article III 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 ORDERED.

nL,.~r
\

iouARDO c. ROBRENO, J,

1
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 ex~mplary
damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained qy the
MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See 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 conse~vation
more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold p~nitive
damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts, 178 F.3d 181
(3d Cir. 1999).

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 that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsybrania
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 (~ http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).
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 ~he Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in connection with its Order.

History of MDL 875, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation
MDL 875, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, involves issues relating to personal injury
damages caused by asbestos products. It currently consists of about 3,000 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 100,000 cases and
up to ten million claims, including land-based and maritime claims ("MARDOC").
Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/md~875d.asp) in
2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing c!>f cases. The
policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement
collferences; 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. Aclditionally, 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 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl375n.as12).
This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption1 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 datal;>ases can be
found on http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp.
Contact 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 875 law clerk ([e-mail] or [phone]), c>r the
Clerk's Office ([phone]) for further assistance.
Intercircuit Assignment Committee

The Intercircuit Assignment Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the leadersqip 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