Opinion · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
In Re Asbestos School Products Liability Litigation
In Re Asbestos Sch. Prods. Liab. Litig., 606 F. Supp. 713 (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 1985)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1985-04-10
- Topic
- litigation
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER PER CURIAM. Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, filed by three defendants in actions in this docket, to centralize in the Eastern District of Pennsylva *714 nia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings the twenty actions 1 listed on the following Schedule A. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Although we recognize that the actions in this litigation involve some common questions of fact, we are not persuaded that these common questions of fact will predominate over individual questions of fact present in each action. Moreover, we note that the common questions of fact involved in these actions have been extensively litigated for the past ten years in connection with thousands of personal injury actions arising from alleged asbestos exposure.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed In Re Asbestos School Products Liability Litigation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 10 opinions
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Although we recognize that the actions in this litigation involve some common questions of fact, we are not persuaded that these common questions of fact will predominate over individual questions of fact present in each action. Moreover, we note that the common questions of fact involved in these actions have been extensively litigated for the past ten years in connection with thousands of personal injury actions arising from alleged asbestos exposure. We further note that 1) one action included in the Section 1407 motion has already been tried, and several other actions have been scheduled for trial within the next six months; and 2) the great majority of parties responding to the Section 1407 motion opposes centralization. The Panel concludes that centralization of these actions is inappropriate for many of the reasons expressed by the Panel in its previous rulings denying transfer of asbestos-related actions.See In re Asbestos and Asbestos Insulation MaterialProducts Liability Litigation,431 F. Supp. 906(J.P.M.L. 1977);In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation(No. II), MDL-416 (J.P.M.L., March 13, 1980) (unpublished order).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer, pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1407, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
- Judge Milton Pollack recused himself and took no part in the decision of this matter. In addition, Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in the decision of this matter. ↩
- The Section 1407 motion included one additional action —County of Anderson, etc. v. United States Gypsum Co., etal.,E.D.Tennessee, C.A. No. CIV-3-83-511 — that was tried in March, 1985, resulting in a jury verdict for defendants and a subsequent order dismissing the action. Accordingly, the question of transfer of this action under Section 1407 is moot. ↩