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)

Download PDF
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 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 (~ 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 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 Aclditionally, all Administrative Orders issued in this litigation (including current Orders and those no longer in effect) can be found at 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 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 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 (, the MDL 875 law clerk ( or (267) 299-7422), c>r the Clerk's Office ((267) 299-7012) 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 or (410) 962-0782. 5

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?