Taylor et al v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 11

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER by The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 875. (Attachments: #(1) Docket Sheet) (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2013)

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: (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 of the Rules ofProcedure of the 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.
FOR THE PANEL:
Inasmuch as no objection Is
pending at this time, the
stay is lifted.

Mar 27,2013
CLERK'S OFFICE
UNITED STATCS
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MIJI.TIDISTRICT LITIGATION

~L.·
Jefl'er;N. Luthi .

Clerk of the Panel

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

MDL No. 875

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE
C.A.NO.

ms:IDIL

TRANSFEROR

lliS:I DlYa C.A.NO.

2

09-62916

CAN

3

05-03107

PAE 2

10-83236

CAN

3

10-02447

PAE 2

10-80824

CAN

3

10-Q3382

PAE

2

11-60031

CAN

3

10-04713

PAE

2

11-64225

CAN

3

11-01031

Pt\B

~

11 6726§

tAN

~

11 92212

PAE

2

11-67660

CAN

3

11-03933

PAE

2

09-74748

CAN

4

09-02335

PAE

2

11-60069

CAN

4

10-05968

PAE

2

11-63924

CAN

4

11-01646

PAE

2

07-63346

NJ

2

06-04899

*PAE
*PAE

2
2

09-64018
09-64058

CAN
CAN

3
3

06-03724
08-04416

PAE

2

10-69365

RI

1

10-00065

PAE

* - denotes that the civil action has been severed.

CASE CAPTION
DUTION v. TODD SHIPYARDS
CORPORATION et al
REYNOLDS et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY et al
TAYLORetal v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY et al
RICCO et al v. ADVANCE MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC. et al
RAMIRIEZ et al v. METALCLAD
INSULATION CORPORATION et al
POUNDS v. POSTER 'i'~~Mdf~013
SWEATT v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY et al
CONNOLLY v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY et al
DIZON v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
et al
BAKER v. HOPEMAN BROTHERS INC. et al
HAGEN et al v. BENJAMIN FOSTER
COMPANY et al
Kerry O'brien v. General Electric Co., et al.
Robert Henry v. General Electric Co., et al.
NELSON v. A. W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY 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)

FILE;D

TAYLOR

MAR 18 Z013

v.

Transferred from the Northern
District of California,
Case No. 10-03382

MICHAEL E. KU~Z. Clerk

VARIOUS DEFENDANTS

By

?ep.CI~.D.

PA No. 2:10-cv-80824

SUGGESTION OF REMAND
AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2013, it is hereby
ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-

875 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 their obligations under the Rule

16 order issued by the Court (see ECF No. 4).
c.) All discovery has been completed.
d.) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions,
including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings
include:
i.

Motion for summary judgment of defendant
Foster Wheeler LLC was denied (ECF No. 65).
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
Defendants for trial are:
i.

General Electric Co.

ii.

Foster Wheeler LLC

h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and 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 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

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. 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 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

-·-

-----------------------------

(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.

(1{__,,~

l

EDUARDO

3

c. ROBRENO' 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 case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
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 (see 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 the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in connection with its Order.
History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litie;ation
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 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/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/md1875d.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/mdl875n.asp).
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.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]), or the Clerk's
Office ([phone]) for further assistance.

Intercircuit Assienment 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