Gerecke et al v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated et al

Filing 21

MDL 875 ORDER REOPENING CASE Signed by MDL Panel (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013)

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: ( 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. Ā§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 of Procedure ofthe United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation, the transmittal of this 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. Jan 28, 2013 CLERK'S OFFICE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FOR THE PANEL: pf(z:ff e ery . ut 1 Clerk of the Panel IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) MDL No. 875 SCHEDULE FOR CRO: TRANSFEREE niSI l!lY& C.A.NO. PAE 2 11-64219 TRANSFEROR lliS.I lliYa C.A.NO. CAN 3 11-00986 PAE 2 11-67271 CAN 3 11-03507 PAE 2 09-62999 CAN 4 07-04240 PAE 2 11-67274 CAN 4 11-03399 PAE PAE PAE PAE 2 2 2 2 11-63477 09-66670 09-66671 09-66672 ND ND ND ND 1 1 1 1 11-00017 90-00289 90-00290 90-00291 PAE 2 09-66673 ND 1 90-00292 PAE PAE 2 2 09-66674 09-66675 ND ND 1 1 90-00293 90-00294 PAE 2 09-66676 ND 1 90-00295 PAE PAE PAE 2 2 2 09-66677 09-66678 09-66679 ND ND ND 1 1 1 90-00296 90-00297 90-00298 PAE 2 09-66680 ND 1 90-00299 PAE 2 09-66681 ND 1 90-00300 PAE 2 09-66682 ND 1 90-00301 PAE * PAE 2 2 09-66683 09-64060 ND CAN 1 3 90-00302 08-04461 *-denotes that the civil action has been severed. CASE CAPTION Whelan et al v. General Electric Company et al Gerecke et al v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated et al LYMAN et al v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION et al McClain et al v. United States Steel Corporation et al THOMAS v. ABEX CORPORATION et al SKAGER v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al STIMAC v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al STUMPF v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al SULLIVAN v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al SUNDBY v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al TOEPKE v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al VOEGELE v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al WARD v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al WIRTZ v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al WOODS v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al ZACHMEIER v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al ZACHMEIER v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al ZACHMEIER v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al ZOLLER v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al Robert Mcmeans v. General Electric Co., et al. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA F1'l Consolidated Under MDL DOCKET NO. 875 JAN -7 2013; Transferred from the Northern District of California, Case No. 11-03507 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ~b ~ GERECKE MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk By Dep.~erk v. E.D. PA No. 2:11-cv-67271 HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., et al. --- SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 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 (~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. 9). c.) All discovery has been completed. d:) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including di~positive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include: 1 i. Summary judgment motion of defendant General Dynamics Corp. was denied (ECF No. 43). e.} Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viableĀ·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. CBS Corporation ii. General Dynamics Corp. iii. General Electric Co. 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 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 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 2 Alternatively, parties in the below-listed cases 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. (1c: c-~---EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. 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). 3 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 Multi~strict 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 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 ~ 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 infonnation 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 htq>://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp. 4 Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (~ 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 (Judge_Eduardo_Robreno@paed.uscourts.gov), the MDL 875 law clerk (Michele_Ventura@paed.uscourts.gov or (267) 299-7422), or the Clerk's Office ((267) 299-70 12) for further assistance. Intercircuit Assimment 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 Judge_J_Frederick_Motz@mdd.uscourts.gov or (41 0) 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?