Nos. 3:11-2775EMC, 3:11-4327EMC, 3:11-4120EMC, MDL No. 875.


United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

October 23, 2012.


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 of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 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.

SCHEDULE FOR CRO TRANSFEREE TRANSFEROR DIST DIV. C.A.NO. DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION PAE 2 11-67226 CAN 3 11-02775 DODGE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PAE 2 11-67272 CAN 3 11-03508 JOHNS et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al PAE 2 11-67273 CAN 3 11-03564 GILPIN et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al PAE 2 11-67662 CAN 3 11-04120 DELANCY v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al PAE 2 11-67667 CAN 3 11-04327 DENNIS v. BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION et al PAE 2 11-67698 CAN 3 11-04444 KING v. FOSTER WHEELER LLC PAE 2 11-67330 CAN 4 11-03772 HUFF et al v. CBS CORPORATION et al PAE 2 11-67332 CAN 4 11-03802 BARNES v. FOSTER WHEELER LLC et al PAE 2 09-74337 GAS 5 91-00200 COURSON et al v. GARLOCK, INC. et al PAE 2 10-68064 LAM 3 10-00164 ARDOIN v. DSM COPOLYMER, INC. et al Opposed 10/10/2012 PAE 2 09-66629 ND 1 90-00248 EWINE v. A.H. BENNETT COMPANY et al RILEY et al v. A.C. AND S., PAE 2 10-68650 NYS 1 99-11633 INC.(ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING &SUPPLY) et al PAE* 2 09-92628 GAN 1 94-00120 CARTER v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. PAE 2 10-83258 SC 2 10-01409 DONNELLY et al v. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY et al PAE 2 09-69122 UT 2 06-00741 ANDERSON et al v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al


IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS : Consolidated Under LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI) : MDL DOCKET NO. 875 : DODGE : Transferred from the Northern : District of California, v. : Case No. 11-02775 : GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. : E.D. PA No. 2:11-cv-67226


AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2012, 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 above-captioned case:

a.) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at b.) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see ECF No. 7). c.) All discovery has been completed. d.) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include: i. No summary judgment motions were filed. 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.) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are: i. General Electric Co. h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 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 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.



* — denotes that the civil action has been severed.
1. The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL-875 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).


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases