Carpenter et al v. BAE Systems Protection Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 2 in MDL No. 2698), ( 1 in MDL No. 2698) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 4/7/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2698, AZ/2:15-cv-01694, CAC/2:14-cv-07793, CT/3:15-cv-01582, TXN/3:15-cv-02438 (TB)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: HELICOPTER CRASH NEAR SAVANNAH,
GEORGIA, ON JANUARY 15, 2014

MDL No. 2698

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Common plaintiffs in four actions move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
centralize the actions in the Southern District of Georgia or, in the alternative, the District of
Arizona. The actions are pending in the latter district, the Central District of California, the District
of Connecticut, and the Northern District of Texas, as listed on the attached Schedule A. All
responding defendants oppose centralization.1
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny plaintiffs’ motion.
These actions do share certain factual issues arising from the January 15, 2014, crash of a military
helicopter while approaching Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Georgia. But, with respect to at
least three of the five principal defendants,2 BAE, Cubic, and Prototype, issues as to liability appear
to be largely defendant-specific. Plaintiffs allege that BAE, which is a defendant only in the Arizona
action, is liable to them because it failed to design and manufacture the seats installed in the
helicopter in a manner that would have absorbed the force of the crash adequately. In contrast, Cubic
and Prototype are sued in the California action with respect to unrelated components of the
helicopter. Cubic is alleged to have provided an Electronic Locator Transmitter that failed to
transmit a signal following the crash, and Prototype is faulted for issues pertaining to the helicopter’s
tail-rotor pitch assembly and related components. The principal common issues among these three
defendants appear to be largely limited to plaintiffs’ damages. And, to the extent that common issues

1

These defendants are BAE Systems Protection Systems, Inc., (BAE), which is sued in the
Arizona action), Prototype Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc. (Prototype) and Cubic Defense
Applications, Inc. (Cubic), which are sued in the California action, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (collectively Sikorsky), which are sued in the Connecticut
action, and L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, LP (L-3), which is sued in the Texas action.
2

Technically, there are six defendants, as plaintiffs sue two Sikorsky entities in the
Connecticut action – Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. In addition,
Paul Carpenter, the father of the deceased co-pilot, is named as a nominal defendant in all four
actions, on the grounds that he may be an heir.

-2do exist, informal coordination and cooperation among counsel are practicable, given that plaintiffs
are represented in all actions by the same law firm.3
The relatively advanced status of the California action also weighs against centralization.
That action has been pending since September 2014, whereas the three other actions were instituted
between July 23, 2015, and October 30, 2015. Under a scheduling order entered in the California
action in March 2015, the fact discovery cutoff is April 14, 2016, the expert discovery cutoff is May
30, 2016, and trial is set for August 2, 2016. In contrast, no significant pretrial proceedings have
occurred in any of the other three actions.4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

3

See In re: Credit Union Checking Account Overdraft Litig., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2016 WL
440420 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 2, 2016) (denying centralization of eleven actions where, inter alia, all
plaintiffs were represented by the same two law firms).
4

See Cymbalta (Duloxetine) Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), — F. Supp. 3d —, 2015 WL
5936936, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 9, 2015) (denying centralization of 41 actions, in part because of their
“substantially different procedural postures”).

IN RE: HELICOPTER CRASH NEAR SAVANNAH,
GEORGIA, ON JANUARY 15, 2014

MDL No. 2698

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona
CARPENTER, ET AL. v. BAE SYSTEMS PROTECTION SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-01694
Central District of California
CARPENTER, ET AL. v. PROTOTYPE ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-07793
District of Connecticut
CARPENTER, ET AL. v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:15-01582
Northern District of Texas
CARPENTER, ET AL. v. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS, C.A. No. 3:15-02438