Turner et al v. General Electronic Company et al

Filing 7

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER by MDL Panel remanding case to the Northern District of California; Case reopened. (Attachments: # 1 District of PA Docket Sheet)(slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2013)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

3 12-1&07)

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

DLNo. 875

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has, in the actions on this conditional remand ord r: ( 1) severed
all claims for punitive or exemplary damages; and (2) advised the Panel that c ordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with respect to the remaining claims have been com leted 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 conditionallremand order
except the severed damages claims be remanded to its/their respective transferor co~rt(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure ofthe United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee lerk for filing
shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of oppo ition with the
Clerk of the Panel within this 7- day period, the stay will be continued until furth r order of the
Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk or the United
I
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnis the Clerk for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with a stipulation or designation of the content of the record
to be remanded and all necessary copies of any pleadings or other matter filed so as o enable said
Clerk to comply with the order of remand.
Inasmuch as no objection is
pending at this time, the
stay is lifted.

Sep 17, 2013
CLERK'S OFFICE
UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

FOR THE PANEL:

~~
e ery . ut 1
Clerk of the Panel

------------------------------------------------ ----------------~-OATEIL-~'"""""'"'-:----+----­
~EiT:

--~~------~----~-------

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

MDL No. 875

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE

niSI JliY. C.A.NO.

TRANSFEROR
.lliSI JliY. C.A.NO.

PAE

12-60141

CAN

3

12-01600

PAE

*

2
2

12-60135

CT

3

12-00177

PAE

2

09-64308

CAN

3

08-00228

* - denotes that the civil action has been severed.

CASE CAPTIQN
TURNER et al v. GENER L ELECTRONIC
COMPANY et al
ZEPPEIRI v. GENERAL LECTRIC
COMPANYet al
John L. Davis v. General

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

TURNER

Transferred from thej Northern
District of Califor~ a
Case No. 12-01600

I

1

v.

I
E.D. PA No. 12-601411

VARIOUS DEFENDANTS

FILED
SEP- 5 2013

MICHAB-E· KUNZ. ~~rk
By

.SUGGESTION OF REMAND

QepoVIV

s hereby

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2013, it
ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case

MDL-

875 Administrative Order No. 18, No. 01-875 (E.D. Pa.

30,

2009), ECF No. 6197, the Court finds that, as to the a
captioned case:
a.) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875
Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's
Orders page, at h

).

b.) Parties have completed their obligations unde~ the Rule
16 order issued by the Court

(~ ECF

No. 10) .

!

c.) All discovery has been completed.
d.) The Court has adjudicated all pending motions, including
dispositive motions.
e.) Rule 18. settlement discussions have been exha

ted at

this time as to the remaining viable defendant.
f.) The Court finds that this case is prepared fo
1

trial

without delay once on the transferor court's docke , subject

challenges) .
g.) According to Plaintiff, the remaining viable D fendant
for trial is:
General Electric Company
h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, an

claims

for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by

he MDL-

875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

I
I

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-cap ioned
case should be REMANDED to the United States District C urt for
I

the Northern District of California for resolution of ajl matters
I

pending within this case except punitive damages. 1

II

Alternatively, parties have seven (7) days within ~hich to
consent to a trial before an Article III or Magistrate ~udge in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In such an even1' if

consent is granted, a trial will be scheduled within s' ty (60)
i

days, on a date convenient to the parties in Philadelpd
j

The court finds that the issue of punitive .
must be resolved at a future date with regard to the eq
875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or e~
damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained
MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Collins, 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is resp
public policy to give priority to compensatory claims
exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent cons~
more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold d
damage claims on remand. " } ; see also In re Roberts , 17 8!
(3d Cir. 1999} .
·
1

2

re
er
at ion
nitive
F.3d 181

I

I

II

Pennsylvania, and the Suggestion of Remand will be
AND l:T l:S

so

ORDERED.

vaca~ed.
II
II
I
I;

3

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM
Updated SeptemberS, 2013

To: Transferor Judge
From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875
Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court
I

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennlvlvania
l
i

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Co~t in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
!
Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant o 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 MJIL 875 Court
can be found in the Suggestion of Remand (above) that the MDL Court submitted1p the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in connection with its Order.
I
Histozy of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litieation
i
1

MDL 875, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, involves issues relating to 'ersonal
injury damages caused by asbestos products. It currently consists of about 3,000 c~ es transferred
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which has been transferring cases o the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania since 1991. Each case typically consists of claims by mul ·~le plaintiffs
against multiple defendants. Since its inception, the litigation has involved more t1 fu1 100,000
cases and up to ten million claims, including land-based and maritime claims ("M RDOC").
Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see htto://www.oaed.uscourts.gov/n ~187_Sd.aso) in
2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processiiJ of cases. The
policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for ettlement
conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transfero~ courts, or, in
the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so request~' by the
•
I
parttes) .
,
Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

I
I

More information about the history ofMDL 875 can be found on the Eastern DistJ 'ct of
Pennsylvania's MDL 875 website at htq?://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875a.asp. dditionally,
all Administrative Orders issued in this litigation (including current Orders and th ~e no longer
in effect) can be found at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp.
Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of

al~ decisions issued by the Presidio~ Officer on
. I

I,

II
I

substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see htt ·llwww. aed usco
This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case cap on, subject
matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends
spreadsheet
to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those alre y addressed
by the MDL-875 Court.

i

1

Other options available to assist the Transferor Court with legal research include s chable
databases created by LexisNexis and Westlaw. Directions on how to access these tabases can
be found on http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp.
I

II

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

!I

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with rut
relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may I ·se.

I

You may contact the Presiding Judicial Officer (Judge_Eduardo_Robreno@paed. courts.gov),
the MDL 875 law clerk ([e-mail] or (267) 299-742 , or the
Clerk's Office [phone]) for further assistance.
l
Interclrc:qit Assipment Cpmmittee

I

I

The Intercircuit Assignment Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the lead rship of Judge
J. Frederick Motz of the District of Maryland, can assist in the identification and signment of a
senior judge from another District who is ready, willing and able to preside over tli trial of this
case. If appropriate, please contact Judge Motz at Judge_J_Frederick_Motz@md4 uscourts.gov
or (41 0) 962-0782.
·

5