Sweatt v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 12

MDL ORDER REMANDING CASE to the Northern District of California. ***CASE RE-OPENED. Signed by the MDL Panel on 4/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Docket-Eastern District of PA)(vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2013)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL OD MULTIDISTRICf LITIGATION 3'. }/- 3g 33 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCfS 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 STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION "~· Clerk of the Panel ATRUE COPY C TIFIE TO FROM TH£ f\EIOM OATe1J JfTiilf: J. g- J3 M!'llf~~TCIIflT ~N 0lST~C.T OF ii'ENNiVLVA'NIA IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) MDL No. 875 SCHEDULE FOR CRO TRANSFEREE lliSl: DIL C.A.NO. TRANSFEROR lliSl: DlL C.A.NO, PAE 2 09-62916 CAN 3 05-03107 PAE 2 10-83236 CAN 3 10-02447 PAE 2 10-80824 CAN 3 10-03382 PAE 2 11-60031 CAN 3 10-04713 PAE 2 11-64225 CAN 3 11-01031 ~ 11 67263 eAN ~ 11 92212 PAE 2 11-67660 CAN 3 11-03933 PAE 2 09-74748 CAN 4 09-02335 2 11-60069 CAN 4 10-05968 PAE 2 11-63924 CAN 4 11-01646 PAE 2 07-63346 NJ 2 06-04899 PAE 2 PAE 2 09-64018 09-64058 CAN CAN 3 3 06-03724 08-04416 2 10-69365 RI 1 10-00065 Pi\8 PAE * * PAE * - denotes that the civil action has been severed. CASE CAPTION DUITON v. TODD SIDPYARDS CORPORATION et al REYNOLDS et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY etal 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 FOUNDS Y. FOSTBR WHaYfi<ilif~13 SWEATT v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al CONNOLLY v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYetal 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. NELSONv.A.W.CHESTERTON COMPANYetal 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 SWEATT Transferred from the Northern District of California, Case No. 11-03933 FILEt;) v. MAR 1 B 2013 VARIOUS DEFENDANTS : E.D. PA No. 2:11-cv-67660 MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk By Oep. Clerk 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. 8). c.) All discovery has been completed. d.) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include: i. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant Bath Iron Works Corp. (ECF No. 29). 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 Company 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 (7) days within which to consent to a trial before an Article III 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 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. EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. 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 (~ 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 Litieation 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 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/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/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) 299-7012) for further assistance. Intercircuit Assi2nment Committee The Intercircuit Assignment Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the leadership of Judge J. Frederick Motz ofthe District ofMaryland, 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?