U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION€¦ · report. Judge Lumbard advised the...

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

ANNUAL STATISTICS

1968

42

calendar in the Eastern District of New York aided by a grant of $8,000 to the Institute of Judicial Administration from the N a- . tional Defender Program of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association; a civil docket calendar control study in the Southern District of N ew York; a civil study of the calendar in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania built upon the study undertaken by the Administrative Office during fiscal year 1968; a comprehensive study of the actual jury operation in the Western District of Missouri aimed at a determination of the present utilization of jurors to secure more efficiency in operation and a saving in expense (with the assistance of the American Bar Foundation); an experimental project under the probation system which will reflect a treatment typology to aid the probation service to determine the most fruitful supervisory relationships; a further probation project along the lines recently completed at the University of California in Berkeley concerned with presentence and supervisory practices; a study of systems procedures in the federal courts, including the relative advantages of the master calendar and individual assigrnnent calendaring systems; a study of a clerk's office, using as a test the Clerk's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to determine the necessary business practices and controls that would produce an efficient operation in a multiple-judge district; the preparation of a desk or bench book fer district judges; a study of the assignment system of judges to pa...'1els in a court of appeals; a study of the screening process in the courts of appeals to prevent severe clogging because of frivolous appeals and a study of the increase in habeas corpus cases in the district courts.

The Director announced that the third seminar to be conducted in 1968 for newly appointed judges which will be held in Washington, D.C., from October 25 throttgh November 1, 1968 will tor the first time be held under the sponsorship of the Federal Judicial Center, acting ill conjunction with Chief Judge Alfred P. Murrah, Chairman of the Judicial Conference Com .. -rnittee on Trial Practice and Technique which has sponsored all previous seminars for newly appointed judges.

JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Chief Judge Alfred P. Murrah, Chairman of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, reported on the initial activities of the Panel subsequent to its appointment by the Chief Justice on

)f New York aided by a grant of al Administration from the N arational Legal Aid and Defender ar control study in the Southern iy of the calendar in the Eastern Ion the study undertaken by the !al year 1968; a comprehensive 1 in the Western District of Mis-: the present utilization of jur~r8 ion and a saving in expense (wIth 1f Foundation) ; an experimental :m which will reflect a treatment ice to determine the most fruitful her probation project along the liversity of California in Berkeley supervisory practices; a study of courts, including the relative aclmd individual assigmnent calen'8 office, using as a test the Clerk's ~ouisiana. to determine the neceslIs that w~uld produce an efficient strict; the preparation of a desk a study of the assignment system appeals; a study of the screening o prevent severe clogging because of the increase in habeas corpus

:he third seminar to be conducted es which will be held in Washinggh November I, 1968 will for. t~l1 msorshin of the Federal JudICIal ;h Chief Judge Alfred P. Murrah, ~nce Com ... -rnittee- on Tria.l Practice

. . r lsored all preVlous semmars lor

LTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

l , Chairman of the Judicial Panel -ted on the initial activities of the ltment by the Chief Justice on

43

May 29, 1968. Judge Murrah pointed out to the Conference that the Panel was created by the enactment of Public Law 90- 296, signed by the President April 29, 1968. The law created a new Section 1407 of Title 28, United States Code, providing for the trapsfer of certain multidistrict litigation for pretrial purposes only. The legislation was enacted partly as a result of the sponsorship and endorsement of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Judge Murrah said that the other members of the Panel are Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Chief Judge William H. Becker of the Western District of Missouri, Judge Joseph S. Lord, III, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Edwin A. Robson of the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Stanley A. Weigel of the Northern District of California and Judge Edward Weinfeld of the Southern District of N ew York.

Judge Murrah stated that the Panel held its organizational meeting on June 26, at which time it adopted provisional rules of procedure and began operations. The first hearings of the Panel were scheduled to take place on August 8, 1968.

COMMITTEE ON COlvIMITTEES

Chief Judge J. Edward Lumbard of the Second Circuit, Chairman of the Committee on Committees, presented the Committee's report.

Judge Lumbard advised the Conference that the Committee had been created as a result of a recommendat~on made at the September 1967 meeting of the Conference at which Judge John Biggs, Jr., had stated that the Conference had not reviewed its committee structure for more than twelve years and that the time had come for a complete survey oJ the structures of Conference committees as to status, number and functions.

As a result of the Committee's deliberations, the Conference approved a recommendation that all of the existing com..-rnittees of the Conference (other than the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and its advisory committees which were not considered in the Committee's deliberations) should be discharged and that the Chief Justice should be authorized to appoint the members of such committees and subcommittees as were now authorized by the Conference. The Conference agreed further that members of the existing committees which are ret8jned should not be discharged until they are replaced by appointment by the Chief Jus-

Froperty of t he U. S. ~overp~ent Admi ni s trative Offlce of the U. S. Cour ts LibrarY

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1969

4 " d a «eminal' for

i " tl superVIse ~ Irec y" b 1968 and Jusfirst time 111 Octo er u1l re-ture the Center wi~l assu~de; and

1 PPOlnted JU bes

)th for new Y a " Th Center " d Judges e

~re expenence "" d t ward " " aIDS directe 0 trammg progr

d referees in bankruptcy. ers an . . dO" and execuconference of chIef JU t:>es . Jan-" held at the Center m " 'lets was f 'ng metropolItan

roblems aCl lany PI . the judicial process. and de ays m f im-. the process 0 18 of the Center m . the Southern lterizing the

d dtOhck~:s:rn District of

York an e . th :W .' th Clerk's Office m e y reorgamzmg e o-rams in

. ' developing crash pro!:> . . na, m . in the dispOSItIOn of etrial technIques . l ' indi-

.' intensive pretna m l orgamzmg 1 • the central calendar d t 'al pOOlS m n. n . d" "dual calen-

' t h from central to m IVl ; SWl C . ses in th e courts

1 f 1· in screenmg cas . o.e p u , ..' d . developmg .' 1 tigatlOn an m lonal mJlifY 1 . statewide data

ams and creatmg a .' u ogr . ' l"tigation; in selectmg J ry stconVlctlOn

.1 c:r the efficient utilization tn and teachmo b t" on report tech-. unchcard pro a 1 . mg a p 1 d probation surveIllance aids in paro e an . . te knowl-

. . to dissemma es of publIcatIons . d' . 1 branch-a the personnel of the JUFledCIa 1 Judicial

h" "The era ~ Third Branc , "Th Judges'

. uals such as e . )eClalty man · , d Multidistrict Manual on Complex an

'ION OF BOARD MEMBER d " Wa e

h 1 ear term of Judge " a! Ldvised that t e -y Federal J,udiCl >mber of the Board of the J d McCree J has u ge d :> on March 28. Inasmuc f the Boar I

~ member 0 d III 4-year term as a Sections 621 an to elect him, pursuant to -

States Code.

5


Chief Judge Alfred P. Murrah, Chairman of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, reported on the activities of the Panel since its organization in the summer of 1968.

Judge MU:frah stated that since its organization the Panel has formally considered, either on motion of a party or its own initiative, 16 groups of cases which, collectively, include more than 600 cases in 44 different Federal district courts. The Panel has determined that transfer under Section 1407 was appropriate in nine of these 16 groups of cases and 202 cases have been transferred to seven different federal district courts for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Judge Murrah stated that the Panel's docket has been dominated by multiple (airline crashes) and treble damage antitrust litigation. These account for 14 of the 16 groups of matters considered by the Panel. Other multidistrict litigation considered thus far have involved patent infringement actions and a group of cases requesting infringement relief against the Postmast er General with regard to certain fourth class bulk mailing regulations. The Panel has thus far made the final determination in 10 of the 16 groups of cases and in only one has the motion to transfer been denied.

Judge Murrah stated that because of the volume of multidistrict litigation, the Panel has been meeting once each month, generally on the fourth Friday of the month. The staff of the Panel maintains a complete docket system and extensive files for all matters before the Panel. "

JUDICIAL APPROPRIATIONS

Chief Judge William J. -€ampbell, Chairman of th~ standing Corrunittee of the Conference on the Budget, reported that hearings were held by the Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives on March 12, 1969. Judge Campbell stated that the requests for fiscal year 1970 provided for the employment of 36 additional deputy clerks and 33 stenographers for the courts of appeals. Provision has been made for 205 dfeputy clerks for the district courts, 166 of whom are requested

Or the ad . . t · h " Th' mlms ratIOn of t e new random Jury selectIon process. ll'klty-nine are requested to cope with the general increase in the

Wor oad Th . . e estlffiate also contemplates adjustments in the and salaries of law clerks and crief-law clerks based on the

ariana estariel

Rectangle

36 lations other than reap-

ocal regu '9' 1969 Actions n 67 in 1968 t-O 6 m. :

C mroiSSlOn mcreased :Commerce 0

1969 by circuit and nature ~e fiscal year , ~~t

Suits involving State or

\ ~'''wo, local lawS or reguiatlOns

ICC Civil orders rights

-'~-\ Other

Dlent actions

- - I -81 1 69

64 - -.,.-,---- 2

1 1 ----- -----2

2 6 -- --- -----1 6

5 8 ----- -----I 2

7 3 ---- ------: 6

5 3 - --- -- - ---,

30 ------ 19 , 8 - ---

4 4 6 -- ----- ---

l 5 8 4 ----- -----

7 3 1 5 l 12 15 -- ---- --- -10 13 3 3

4 ) 2 ---- ------

tUST CASES

:fil d · the district courts in,ses emf Test number in any year .except ~.~ :> ent industry cases. PrIvate an 1

~m1968 to 740 in 1969. Government l; as 43 civil and 14 criminal cases

137

were filed in 1969, compared with 48 civil and 11 criminal cases filed in 1968. A lO-year summary of antitrust cases appears below:

Antitrust cases commenced, fiscal years 1960 through 1969

Government cases Private cases

Fiscal year Total Electrical

Civil Criminal equipment Other industry

1960 _________________ ______ 315 60 27 ----------1961 ____ ___ _____ ___________ 441 1 42 21 37 1962 ____________ _____ ___ ___ 2, 079 141 33 1,739 1963 _______________ ________ 457 1 52 25 97 1964 _______________________ 446 59 24 46

1965 _______ ______ _____ _____ 521 38 11 2 29 1966 ____ ___________________ 770 36 12 3 278 1967------ - ---------------- 598 39 16 37 1968 ______________ _______ __ 718 48 11 ----------1969 _______________________ 797 43 14 ----------

!Includes 9 U.S. electrical industry cases filed in 1961 , 2 in 1962, and 3 in 1963. 'Includes 26 cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) . • All cases were transfers under 28 U .S.C. 1404(a) .

TRANSFER OF CASES UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1407

228 341 266 283 317

443 444 536 659 740

During the year ending July 7,1969 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 367 civil actions from one district to another for purposes of consolidated pretrial procedure in accordance with the act approved April 29, 1968 (Public Law 90-296) which provides in part as follows:

When civil actions involving one or more common questions • of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation. * * * Each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred. * * *

ariana estariel

Rectangle

138

The 367 cases transferred by the panel during its first year of operation were originally filed in 48 separate district courts. They were consolidated in only nine districts, although several districts received more than one group of cases. The schedule of districts receiving cases by transfer order of the Panel is as follows:

District Types of cases transferred

Pennsylvania, Eastern__ _ P lumbing fixture ant itrust and concrete pipe

Number transferred

(east of the Rockies) antitrust___ ________ 121 New York, Southern ____ Protection device antitrust and antibiotic

drug antitrust_ __ ____ _____ __________ ___ 89 Kent ucky, Eastern_ _ _ _ _ _ Cincinnati Airport air disaster - - - - - - - - - - - - _ 53 Illinois, N orthern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Children's books antitrust_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 Kansas ______ __ ____ ____ Grain shipment litigation___ __________ ___ _ 26 'California, N orthern_ _ _ _ Gypsum wallboard antitrust, Hong Kong 26

air disaster and Koratron litigation. New J ersey _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ Postage rate lit igation____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ 10 Oklahoma, Eastern ___ __ Ardmore air disasteL_________ _____ ______ 7 North Carolina, Western_ H endersonville air disasteL__ ___ _____ _____ 2

The following table shows the flow of cases from one district to another under orders issued by the Panel. Altogether these transfers affected 50 districts.

Cases transferred frCYl7l one district to another dUl'ing the year ending J uly 7, 1969, by order of the J udicial Panel on Multidistrict L itigation

Circuit and district Number of «ases

Received T ransferred

Tot~ ___________ ___ _____ _________ _ 367 367

!District of Columbia _____ _____ ________________ ___ __ _ 3

First Circuit __ _____ __ __ _____ __ ___ ___ ___ _____ _ 15

Massachusetts _____ _________ ______________________ _ 13 Puerto Rico ___________ _____ __ ___________ __ ____ ___ _ 2

Second Circuit_ ___ _______ __ __ ______ 89 30

Connecticut- __ _____________ ___ _______________ __ __ _ 1 New York:

E astern ______ ______________ ___ ___ __ ____________ _ 7 Southern_____________ _______ ____ __ ____ 89 20 Western __ ___ __ ______________ ___ __ __ _______ ____ _ _ 2

Increase or decrease

- 3

-15

-13 - 2

+59

-1

- 7 +69 -2

=

38

the panel during its first year of 48 separate district courts. They

istricts, although several districts .f cases. The schedule of districts )f the Panel is as follows:

'ypes of cases transferred

ture antitrust and concrete pipe

Number transferred

e R ockies) antitrust___ ______ __ 121 .evice antitrust and ant ibiotic rust ____ - _____ - ---- - - - -- - - - --irport air disast er - - - - - - - - - - - -Joks ant itrust_ - - --- - --- - - - - --ent litigation _____ -- - - - - - - -- - -.llboard antit rust, Hong Kong :r and Koratron lit igation. : litigation _____ __ ____________ _

disaster __ __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ille air disasteL ________ ______ _

89 53 40 26 26

10 7 2

e flow o.f cases from one district to the Panel. Altogether these trans-

wther during the year ending J u ly 7, 1969, tnel on Multidistrict Litigation

Number of cases

Received Transferred

367 367

. _----- --- - --- -- - 3

. ------ --------- - 15

- - - - --- - -- ------- 13 2 - ------ - ----- - ---

89 30

1 -- ----- - -------- -

7 -- - ---- ----------89 20

2 ------- ----------


-3

-15

-13 -2

+59

-1

-7 +69 -2 =

139

Cases tran sferred from one district to another dttring the year ending J uly 7, 1969, by order of the Judicial P anel on lvlultidistrict L itigation-Continued

Number of cases Circuit and district

Received

Third circuit ______ _____ ___________ _ 131

New J ersey__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 10

Pennsyl vania : Eastern_ _________ ___ _____________ ___ __ 121 lVIiddle _____ __ __ ____ ____ __ ___ ______ ___ _ __ ____ ___ _

Western ___________ c ___________________ __ ____ ___ _

Four th CircuiL ______ ______ __ _____ _ 2

T ransferred

40

2

21 3

14

20

lVIaryland _ __ _ ________ _ _ ____ ________ ___ __ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ 11

Nor th Carolina : E astern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 Western__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 ___ ______ _

South Carolin a ________ '. _ ___ ____ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ 1

Virginia : Eastern_ _ _______ ____ _ __________ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7

Fifth Circui t ___________________ ____ _____ ___ _ _

Alabama: N orthern _____ __ ____________ _________________ __ _ _ lVIiddle __ ____ ___ ___ ~ _______ __ __________________ _ _

Florida : Southern _____ _____ ______ __ _____________ _____ ___ _

Georgia: N orthern __________ - - ----_ - -- ____________ __ ___ --T

Louisiana: Eastern __________________ __ ______ __ ____________ _

T exas: N orthern_ _ _ _ _____________________ ____ _________ _

Sixth Circuit .... . ....... ..... .. . . . 53

Kentucky: E astern . . .. . . . . .. .. .... ... ..... ...... . 53 Western . .. . . .. . ... . .. ... . . .... . . . . . ..

Michigan: Eastern .. .. ..... .. .. .... . . ... . ....... .

Ohio : Southern T ennessee: .. . ...... . .... .. .... . . .. . . . . . .

Eastern .... .... . . . ... . . ..... . . .. ... . ..

12

1 1

3

1

1

5

21

3 1

1

14

2


+91

+ 8

+ 100 - 3

-14

-18

-11

-1 +2 -1

-7

-12

-1 -1

-3

-1

-1

-5

+ 32

+ 50 -1

-1

-14

- 2

140

Cases transferred from one district to another during the year ending J uly 7, 1969 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict L itigation-Continued

Circuit and district

Seventh Circuit . .............. . ... .

Illinois: Northern ... .. .......... .. . . . . . . ... .. .

Wisconsin: Eastern ... .......... . . .... ... . . ... . . . . Western ........ . .................... .

Eighth Circuit ..................•..

Arkansas: E astern . . . . .. . ... . . . . ................ .

Iowa: Southern ......... . ..... . . .... . . ... .. . .

Minnesota ......... .. .. . ... . .. ...... .. . . Missouri:

Eastern . . .... . ... .. .. . . .. . . .. ... . . ... . Western . .. .. . ... . .. . .. .. ..... .. .... . .

Nebraska ........... .. ........ .. ... .. .. . South Dakota . .. . .. . .... ..... . . ... ... . . .

Ninth Circuit ....... .... .. . . . . .... .

Alaska .... . . .. . ... . ... . ......... . .. . . . . . Arizona . . .......... . . . . .. •... ..•. ....... California:

Northern .. ..... . . . . ........•.......... Eastern .. . .. . ... ... .. ..... .. .. . ... ... . Central ... . ..... . ............. . ...... . Southern ..... . .... ... .. . . . ... .... .. .. .

H awaii .. . .. . . .. .. . . . ... ..... . .......... . Montana . . ......... . ... . . ....... ::' .. . .. . Oregon . .. .............. . . .. .. ... .. . .. . . Washington:

Western ...... ......... .... .... . . ..... .

T enth Circuit .. ... .. . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . .. .

Colorado .. ... . ... . . ... ...... . .......... . Kansas ......... .. ... . . ........... .. .. . .

Ok~~~=:~ ........ ........ . . . . .......... 1

Number of cases


40 86

40 81

1 4

34

1

4 17

2 7 2 1

19 98

1 4

19 70 1

13 1 1 1 1

5

33 8

3 26 5

7 '" .. .. . ..


•

- 4{)

- 41

-1 - 4

- 34

- 1

- 4 - 17

- 2 - 7 - 2 - 1

-79

- 1 - 4

- 51 -1

- 13 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1

-5

+25

- 3 +21

+7

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1970

5


Chief Judge Alfred P. Murrah, Chairman of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, reported on the transfer of cases by the panel during the period July 1 through December 31, 1969.

Judge Murrah stated that during this period the Panel transferred 173 civil actions from one district. to another for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, bringing to 540 the total number of transfers made by the Panel since the enactment of the new law, 28 U.S.C. 1407. The 173 cases transferred include 135 so-called tag-along cases filed after the original transfers made by the PaneL The other 38 cases involve seven new groups of multidistrict litigation.

The Conference discussed various problems that have arisen in regard to the filing of class actions pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It was recommended that a study be made of class actions, particularly in regard to the amount of lawyers' fees and the improper solicitation of cases. In this regard, the attention of the Conference was directed to a new local rule of court adopted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to class actions.

JUDICIAL APPROPRIATIONS

Chief Judge Carl A. Weinman, Chairman of the standing Committee of the Conference on the Budget, presented a brief oral report to the Conference on the status of the appropriations bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. The Conference was informed that the hearings on the bill had been compl~ted in the House of Representatives and that a report by the Appropriations Committee would be made in due course.

The Conference approved the making of a request for a supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 1971 in such amount as may be necessary to finance the establishment of the United States magistrate positions which were approved by the Conference at this session. The Committee was authorized to request such an appropriation.

ariana estariel

Rectangle

131

year ago. The flow of United States plaintiff condemnation cases beginning with 1962 follows:

TABLE 27.-United States plaintiff land condemnation cases filed, terminated, and pending on June 30, fiscal years 1962 through 1970

Land condemnation cases Increase or

Fiscal year decrease in

Filed Pending pending cases

T erminated June 30

1962 ____ ________________ _ 963 832 3,016 --------- -- ---1963 ______ ___ ________ ____ 1 ,052 1,235 2,833 -183 1964 _______ ____ ~ _________ 960 1,271 2,522 -311 1965 ________________ __ ___ 847 962 2,407 -115

1966 _____ ________________ 779 893 2,293 -114 1967 _________________ __ __ 698 830 2,161 -132 1968 _______ ______________ 796 819 2,138 -23 1969 ____ _______ __________ 904 789 2,253 +115 1970 _____________________ 721 893 2,081 -172

Percent change, 1970 over 1969 ______________ _____ -20.3 13.2 - 7.6 --------------

TRANSFER OF CASES UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1407

During the year ended June 30, 1970, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 501 civil actions from one district to another for purposes of consolidated pretrial procedure. This was 134 more cases than were transferred in the first year. The Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April 29, 1968 (P.L. 90-296), provides that "where civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts such actions may be transferred to.,any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ... each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the' district from which it was transferred ... "

During this second year of operation, the 501 cases transferred by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel were originally filed in 64 separate district courts. These 501 civil filings were consolidated in only 14 districts, with four districts receiving more than one group of cases. By comparison, in fiscal year 1969, 367 cases were transferred from 48 separate districts into nine districts. Those

ariana estariel

Rectangle

132

districts which received cases by transfer order of the panel m fiscal year 1970 are as follows:

TABLE 28.-Number and types of cases transferred during fiscal year 1970 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Transferee district Types of cases transferred Number transferred

TotaL___ ___ __ _ _ ______ _ _ ______ ____ ____ ____ _ _ ___ _ __ __ _ ______ _ _ _ ____ __ ____ ____ __ _ _ ___ __ _ 501

Massachusetts __ __ ______ ____ _________ Revenue Properties Co, Ltd. , securities actions__ ____ _ 17 New Hampshire__________________ ___ Hanover air disaster. ________ ________ _________ _________ 15 New York, Southern_ _______________ Antibiotic drug antitrust; Seeburg-Commonwealth 43

United merger litigation. Pennsylvania, E astern_ _________ ____ Plumbing futures antitrust (east of the Rockies}______ 181 Maryland____________________________ Kaehni jewelry patent._ ______________________________ 5 West Virginia, Southern _____________ Silver Bridge disaster.________________________________ 26 T exas, Southern_____________________ Westec Corp. Iitigation_ _______________________________ 4 Ohio, Southern___________ __ ______ __ _ Dayton air disaster. _______________ ______ ____ _________ _ illinois, Northern__ __________________ Admission tickets litigation; Butterfie Id patent in- 110

lringement. Indiana, Southern ________________ ___ Fairland midair disaster__________________________ ____ _ 37 Minnesota____ ____ __ ______ __ _ _ _ _ _____ IBM antitrust.___ _ ____ _ _ ________ _ ______ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ _ __ 3

California, Nor thern_________________ Gypsum Wallboard antitrust; Koratron litigation; 30 water meter antitrust litigation; Western liquid asphalt antitrust.

California, CentraL _________________ Concrete pipe (west of the Rockies) antitrust; motor 16 vehicle air pollution control equipment antitrust; Santa Monica Bay air disaster.

Kansas _______________________ ____ ___ Grain shipment Iitigation ___ ____ _____________________ _

The table which follows shows the cases transferred from one district to another by order of the panel during last year. Altogether 65 of the 93 districts were affected by these transfers. This can be compared to 50 districts affected in 1969.

TABLE 29.-Cases transferred from one district to another during fiscal year ended June 30,1970, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litig&.tion

Number of cases Circuit and District


Total ______________________ _ 501 501

District of Columbia ___________________________ _ 15

First CircuiL ______ ___ ______ _ 32 9

Massachusetts_ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 17 8 New Hampshire_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _____ 15 Puerto Rico __________________________________ _ 1

Increase or Decrease

-15

+23

+9 +15 -1

133

TABLE 29.- Cases transferred from one district to another during fisca l year ended June 30, 1970, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation- Continued

Number of cases Circuit and District Increase or

Decrease Received Transferred

Second Circuit- _____________ _ 43 154 - 111

Connecticut- _________________________________ _ 2 -2 New York:

N orthern _________________________________ _ 3 - 3 Eastern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ _ 8 - 8 Southern______________________ 43 129 -86 Western _____ _____________________________ _ 2 - 2

vermont ________ _______________ ___ __________ _ _ 10 - 10

Third Circuit- ___ ___ _____ ___ _ 181 22 +159

Delaware _______________ _________ _______ ______ _ 1 -1 New Jersey ______________ __ - - - - - - - - ___ ______ _ - - 4 - 4 Pennsylvania:

Eastern__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 181 13 +168 Middle ___________________________________ _ 1 - 1 Western _________ . ________ 0 __________ _ ______ _ 3 -3

Fourth CircuiL _____________ _ 31 15 +16

6 , - .1.

Maryland _____ __________ _________ _ 5 North Carolina:

Eastern __________________________________ _ 1 -1 M iddle ___ _____ _________________________ __ _ 1 - 1

Virginia, Eastern __________ _____ ~ ___________ __ _ 6 - 6 West Virginia, Southern__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26 1 +25

Fifth Circuit _______________ _ 4 41 -37

Alabama: • N orthern ___ ____ __________ ____ : ~ __________ _ 7 - 7 Middle ___________________________________ _ 1 - 1 Southern _________________________________ _ 3 -3

Florida: Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _______ _________ _ Middle_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 -1 Southern___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 -2

Georgia: Northern___________________ __ _ ____________ 4 -4 Southern_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 -1

Louisiana: Eastern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 - 5 Western_ ______________________ ____________ 1 - 1

134

TABLE 29.-Cases transferred from one district to another during fiscal year ended June 30,1970, by order of the Judicial" Panel on Multidistrict Litigation-Continued



Texas: Northern ___ ______________________________ _ 10 -10 Southern__ ____ ________________ 4 2 +2 Western _________________________________ _ 4 - 4

Sixth Circuit _______________ _ 5 80 -75

Kentucky: Eastern __________________________________ _ 2 -2 Western ______________________ _ ____ ______ _ _ 2 -2

Michigan: Eastern _ - - -- - - -- - - _ - - - __ - -- - c - _ - ___ - _ - - - -- 10 -10 Western __________________________________ _ 1 -1

Ohio: Northern _________________________________ _ 9 -9 Southern______________________ 5 49 -44

Tennessee: Eastern ___ __ ___ ______ ______ ___ _______ ___ _ _ 2 -2 Middle ___________________________________ _ 3 -3 Western __________________________________ _ 2 - 2

Seventh Circuit- ___ ___ ______ _ 147 73 +74

Illinois, Northern __________________ _ 110 62 +48 Indiana:

N orthern _________________________________ _ 1 -1 Southern_____ ______ ___ ______ __ 37 4 +33

Wisconsin: Eastern _______ ___ ____ ____ ____ ____________ _ 5 - 5 Western _____ _________________ ____________ _ 1 -1

• Eighth Circuit ______________ _ 3 28 - 25

Arkansas: Eastern ______ ______ _______ _____ ________ __ _ 2 -2 Western __ ___ _______ _______ ___ ___ ________ _ 1 -1

Iowa, Southern _____ _____ ___ _______ ___________ _ 1 -1 Minnesota_________________________ 3 4 -1 Missouri:

Eastern ______________ _______ ___ ________ __ _ 4 -4 Western _______ ____ __ ____ ______ ___________ _ 8 - 8

Nebraska ________ _____ _______ ________________ _ 8 - 8

135

TABLE 29.-Cases .transferred from one district to another during fiscal year ended June 30, 1970, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict L itigation-Concluded



Ninth CircuiL _____ __ ______ _ _ 46

Alaska _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ___ _ _ Arizona ________ _______ ___ ___ ____ __ ______ ____ _ _

California: Northern______ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ 30 Central_______________ ________ 16 Southern ___ ______ _____ _____ ____ ____ _____ _ _

Nevada ________ _ - - _ - - - ___ - - - _ - - - - - __ - - _ - _ - _ - - -Oregon ___ ____ __ - - - - - -- ___ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - __ - - --Washington, W estern _____ __ _____ ____ __ ________ _

Tenth CircuiL ___________ ___ _ 9

Colorado ___ ________________ __ - _ - - - ___ __ - _____ _ J{ansas_ ___ ____ ____ ____________ __ _ 9

Oklahoma: Northern _____ ______ ______________________ _ Western ____ __ ___ _______________ ___ __ _____ _

Utah _____________ ___ ____ __ _____ ___ ___ _______ _

53

1 8

13

-7

-1 - 8

+17 16 _______ ____ _

3 1 1

10

11

1 5

1 3 1

-3 -1 -1

-10

- 2

-1 +4

-1 - 3 -1

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1971

1-86

about 1 percent lower than a year ago. The flow of U.S. plaintiff condemnation cases beginning with 1962 follows:

TABLE 42.- U.S. plaintiff land condemnation cases filed, terminated, and pending on June 30, fiscal years 1962- 71

Land condemnation cases

Fiscal year Filed Termi- Pending

nated June 30

1962 ___________________ ____ ____ 963 832 3, 016 1963 _______________________ ___ _ 1, 052 1,235 2, 833 1964 ____ ______________________ _ 960 1,271. 2, 522 1965 _________ ___________ __ _____ 847 962 2,407 1966 ___ ________________ ____ ____ 779 893 2,293 1967 ___ __ ______________________ 698 830 2, 161 1968 ___________________________ 796 319 2, 138 1969 _______________ __ __________ 904 789 2, 253 1970 __ _____________ ____________ 721 893 2, 081 1971 _________________________ __ 787 g10 2,058

Percent change: 1971 over 1970 ______ ________ 9. 2 - 9. 3 - 1. 1

Transfer of cases under 28 U.S .C. 1407

Increase or decrease in

pending cases

-- --- --------- 183 -311 -U5 -114 -102 -23

+U5 - 172 -23

-- ------------

Now in its third year of operation, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 305 civil actions from one district to another during fiscal year 1971. These 305 cases had been originally filed in 53 separate district courts. The panel switched all of these cases into 19 districts. The purpose of these transfers was to consolidate pretrial procedure. The Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April 29, 1968 (Public Law 90- 296), provides that "where civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation * * * Each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred * * *JJ

For the first time in this annual statistical report, cases transferred as multi district litigation are being recorded statistically as new filings in the courts which receive them. Thus, at the beginning of fiscal year 1971 where multidistrict litigation cases were still pending, these were recorded as filings. There were 409 cases in this group. To this pending group we added the 305 case transfers recorded during the year.

ariana estariel

Rectangle

187

To a great extent, the increase in antitrust cases recorded this year was due to the inclusion of 442 cases-192 previously transferred 'and 230 new transfers during the year. A similar type of duplicate count will be given to 80 previously transferred copyright, patent, and trademark cases, to 57 airplane disaster cases, and to 49 security, commodities and exchange cases.

In accompanying pages are three sets of data concerning the multidistrict litigation cases. As experience with multidistrict litigation transfers continues, additional tables will be supplied to measure their effect upon workload in the courts.

TABLE 43.-Number and types of cases transferred duri~g fiscal year order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

District Types of cases transferred

California, N orthern_ _ _ _ _ _ Gypsum Wallboard Antitrust; Koratron Patent and Antitrust.

California, CentraL ___ ____ Air Pollution Antitrust; Santa Monica Air Disaster; Embro Patent.

ConnecticuL--- _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ Master Key Antitrust _______________ __ _ Delaware____ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ Frost Patent _________________________ _

District of Columbia_ _ _ _ _ _ Ampicillin Antitrust; Alsco-Harvard Fraud.

Florida, Southern__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Maracaibo, Venezuela Air Disaster _____ _ lllinois, N orthern_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Air Fare; Government Auto Fleet Sales

Antiturst. Indiana, Southern _______ _ Kansas_. _______________ _ Massachusetts ___________ _

Minnesota ______________ _ Michigan, Eastern _______ _ New Hampshire _________ _ New York, Northern ___ __ _ New York, Southern _____ _

Ohie, Southern

Oklahoma, W est~;~= = = = = = = Pennsylvania, Eastern ____ _

Puerto Rico -------- -- ----

Fairland, Ind. Air Disaster ___ ____ _____ _ Grain Shipments ________ ___ _______ ___ _

Revenue Properties Securities;' CBS Color Tube Patent .

IBM Antitrust _____ __________________ _ Willingham Patent ___________________ _ Hanover, N.H. Air DisasteL __________ _ Welch and M'organ Fee Litigation ____ _ _ Antibiotic Drug Antitrust; Seeburg-

Commonwealth United Securities; Penn Central Commercial Paper; Carrom Trademark; Brown Co. Securities.

Dayton, Ohio Air Disaster _______ ____ __ _ Four Seasons Securities _______________ _

Plumbing Fixture Antitrust; Penn Central Securities; CBS Licensing Antitrust.

Puerto Rico Air Disaster ______ _____ __ _ _

1971 by

Nu,mber transferred

•

12

25

8 2

22

4 17

13 14 2

3 1 8 2

24

1 9

119

19

Total_____________ ________________________________ ______ 305

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

188

TABLE 44.-Cases transferred front one d1'strict to another during fiscal year ended June 30, 1971 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Nnmber of cases Circuit and district


Total ______ ____ ___________ ______ _ _ 305 305

District of Columbia ___ __ __ ____ __________ _ 22 2

FIRST CIRCUIL ___________ ___ _ _ 29 6

Massachusetts ____ ____ __ __ ____ ___ _______ _ 2 5 New Hampshire_____ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ 8 __ ______ _ _ Rhode Island__ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ 1 Puerto Rico_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 19 __ _______ _

SECOND CIRCUIT __ ____ ___ __ ___ _ 34 '

ConnecUcut ___ __________________________ _ 8 New York:

N orthern____ _ _ _ __ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 2 Eastern ___ ___ ____ ____ ____ ____________________ _

Southern______________________ ____ __ 24 Vermont ____ __ ___________________________________ _

THIRD CIRCUIL ___________ ____ _ 121

Delaware____ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ ___ __ ___ 2 New Jersey ____ _______ ________________ _____ ____ __ _ _

Pennsylvania : Eastern__________________________ ___ 119 Middle ________ __ ____________________ __ ____ _ ~ __ Western ________ __ ____ _______ ___ ___ _____ _____ _ _

FOURTH CIRCUIL _______________ ________ _

Maryland ____________________ ~ ____ ___ ____ ________ _

North Carolina: Eastern _____ . ___________ ______________________ _ Middle ____ __ __ ______ ______ _________ ___ _______ _

South Carolina ___ ____ ____________________ _________ _

Virginia: Eastern ____ ___ ___________ ____________ ______ __ _ Western _______ ________ ___ _______________ ____ _ _

76

3

1 2

64 6

32

1 5

9 16

1

20

• 5

3 1 5

5 1

Increase or

decrease

20

23

-3 8

-1 19

- 42

5

1 -2

-40 -6

89

1 - 5

110 - 16 -1

-20

-5

- 3 -1 -5

-5 -1

189

TABLE 44.-Gases transferred from one district to another during jisccr,l year ended June 30,1971 by order ot the Judicial Panel on Multidist'T"ict Litigatiorv-Con.


Received

FIFTH CIRCUIT ________________ _ 4

Alabama: Middle _______________________________________ _

Florida: Northern _____________________________________ _ Middle _______________________________________ _

Southern____________________________ 4

Louisiana: Eastern __________________________________ - - - __

Mississippi: Southern ____________________________ ----------

Texas: Northern ___________________ - _ -- --- - - - - ----- ---Southern _____________________________________ _

Western ______________ - ___ -- - _ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ---

SIXTH CIRCUIT ________________ _ 2

Kentucky: Eastern ______________________ - - - - - - - - - ------ --

Michigan: Eastern_____________________________ 1 Western ____________ - - - - - - --- - -- - - -- - - -- -- -----

Ohio: Northern _____________ - _____ - - --- - - -- - - - - - - -- --Southern____________________________ 1

Tennessee: Western ________________________________ ----- --

SEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________ _ 30

Illinois : Northern ___________________________ _ 17

Indiana:

Transferred

20

1

3 1 2

2

1

4 5 1

18

2

3 1

3 8

1

26

23

Increase or

decrease

-16

-1

-3 -1

2

-2

-1

-4 -5 -1

-16

--2

-2 -1

-3 -7

-1

4

-6

Southern____________________________ 13 __________ 13

Wisconsin: Eastern_ _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ _ _____ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ ___ 2 - 2 Western_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ 1 -1

190

TABLE 44.-Cases transferred from one district to another during fiscal year ended June 30, 1971 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation-Con.



EIGHTH CIRCUIT ______ ___ _____ _ 3 19

Arkansas: Eastern ______________________________________ _ 1

Iowa: Southern _____________________________________ _ 1

Minnesota ____________________________ ~ __ 3 3 Missouri:

Eastern _____ ___ ______________________________ _ 11 Western ______________________________________ _ 1

Nebraska _________________________________________ _ 1 South Dakota _________________ _________ __ _________ _ 1

NINTH CIRCUIT _______ .r ________ 37 81

Arizona __________________________________________ _ 2 California:

Northern____________________________ 12 62 Central_____________________________ 25 12 Southern __ ___ ___ ___________ ________ _____ ___ __ _ 2

Nevada __________________________________________ _ 1

Oregon ___ ________________________________________ _ 1 Washington:

Western _________________________ _____ ________ _ 1

TENTH CIRCUIL_______________ 23" 5

lCansas ___________ ______________________ . 14 4 Oklahoma:

Western______ ______ ___________ ___ ___ 9 1.

Increase or

decrease

-16

- 1

- 1 ----------

- 11 -1 - 1 -1

-44

-2

- 50 13

-2 -1 -1

-1

18

10

8

191

TABLE 45.-Civil cases l'ecorded as fi lings in districts receiving multidistrict litigation cases, by nature of suit, fiscal year 1971

District Total

Tort- personal Injury

Airplane Other

Antitrust

Copyright,

Patent Trademark

Securities, Commodities, and Exchanges

Other

----------1---------- --------- - -Total __ ___ __ . _____ __ ____ _

District of Columbla _____ _____ _ Massachusetts __ - --- - - - - - ------New Hampshlre_ -- ------ -- ---puerto Rlco_ - ---- -- ---- --- -- - Connecticut. - - - ------- ---- ---New York:

Northern- ____ ________ __ __ _

southern __ __ - --- - - - ---- -- - -Pensylvanla:

Eastern __ __ --- --------- ----North Carolina:

Western __ _____________ ______ _

West Virginia: Southern. ____ ---- --- -- --- --

Florida: Southern ___ ___ -- - - - -- -- --- -

Texas: Southern _______ -- - - -- ----- -

Michigan: Eastern _______ __ ___ _______ _

Ohio: Southern ______ _____ _ -- --- --

illinois: Northern ______ _ --___ ------

Indiana: Southern ______________ ____ _

Minnesote ________ -- -----------California:

Northern ______ ___________ _ CentraL _____ _____ ________ _

Kansas _________ ______________ _

Oklahoma: Western ______ __ _______ ____ _

"Includes 55 contract sults.

714 57 26 80 49 60 - - -1----1------ ---------

4 ___ _____ __ _______ ___ 4 ____ _______ __ ________ ________ _ 1 ___ _____ __ _________ _ _____ __ ___ 1 ____ ____ ____ __ _____ _

19 17 ____ ___ __ _ ___ _____ __ __ ___ __ ___ ____ __ ____ 2 19 19 ____ ____________ ___ _ ___ ____ ___ ______ ___ _ __ _______ _ 8 ______ .___ __________ 8 _______ _______ _____ _ ______ ___ _

1 _______ ____ ___ _______________ _ 5 4 ____ ____ __ ___ ______ _

420 382 38 ___ ______ _

2 2 ___ __ ______ __________ _______ __ ___________________ _

26 26 ___ ___ ____ ___ ____ _____ __ ___ ____ ___ _____ _

4 4 ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ _______ _ __ ___ _____ ___ __ ____ _

2 2

6 ___ __ ______ ______ ___ __ ________ ___ ______ _ _____ ____ _

85 ____ _______________ _ 14 71 ________ __ __ __ ____ _ _

8 8 ____ __ ____ ____ ____ __ ______ ___ ____ _________ __ _____ _ 2 ____ _______________ _ 2 __ ____ __ __ _____ ______ ________ _

1 ___ ________________ _ 27 1 _________ _ 22 4 ________ ___________ _ 57 _________ _ _________ _

"56

9 ___ ______ _

Note: This table comprises 409 cases pending on July 1, 1970 as well as 305 new cases received during fiscal ~~ - .

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1972

196

Transfer of cases under 28 U.s.C. 1407

During 1972 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 231 civil actions which were originally filed in 45 districts to 23 district courts for the purpose of consolidated pretrial procedure. In 1971, 305 cases which had been originally filed in 53 different district courts were transferred into 19 districts.

Earlier in this report there was a discussion of class action allegations in civil cases filed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such allegations are prevalent in cases transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Fully 19 of the 39 groups of multidistrict litigation transferred in 1972 contained allegations of a class action. To show the magnitude of a cla,css action litigation, one civil suit transferred in 1972 involves over 22 million possible consumer plaintiffs and already several hundred attorneys are represented in the case. The pretrial procedure in this case as in other multidistrict litigation cases was assigned to a single district judge who also handles a full caseload of civil and

criminal cases. Since the Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April 29, 1968

(Public Law 90-296), became effective, there has been a total of 1,406 transfers by the Judicial Panel. The district judge has the responsibility of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the cases assigned him by the Panel. Unless terminated in the transferee court or ordered 'transferred by the transferee judge to the transferee or other district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, each of the transferred actions will, at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, be remanded by the Panel for trial to the district where the action was originally filed.

Of significance are the ~7.2 civil cases origina.lly filed in districts which received transfers from the Panel. These ca~es when joined to the 1.406 multidistrict litigation cases tra,neferred by the Panel has provided a workload of 2,378 caseo subject to 28 U.S.C. 1407 proceedings. During the four years, 788 of the 2,378 total cases have been remanded by the Panel or terminated leaving a balance of 1,590 cases still on the dockets of the district courts.

The first two tables which follow address themselves to the traJ1S~ fers handled by the Panel during 1972. The third table accounts for each one of the 1,406 multidistrict litigation cases transferred by the Panel during the last four years and further provides the case name of the civil actions transferred to each district court and those which contained class action allegations.

3

Y. 1407

:m Multidistrict Litigation trans,re originaUy filed in 45 districts ·ose of consolidated pretrial prol had been originally filed in 53 sferred into 19 districts. 'L discussion of class action allegae 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil )revalent in cases transferred by lct Litigation. Fully 19 of the 39 1 transferred in 1972 contained , show the mag;nitude of a class ransferred in 1972 involves over ltiffs and already several hundred : case. The pretrial procedure in litigation cases was assigned to a

,ndles a full caseload of civil and

;ion Act, approved April 29, 1968 Iective, there has been a total of Lnel. The district judge has the related or consolidated pretrial pron by the Panel. Unless terminated ~ed transferred by the transferee district under 28 U .S.c. § 1404(a) ransferred actions will, at the conIe remanded by the Panel for trial is originally filed. il cases originally filed in districts 1e Panel. These ca::es when joined ion cases transferred by the Panel 78 cases subject to 28 U.S.C. 1407 TS, 788 of the 2,378 total cases have r terminated leaving a balance of the district courts. )w address themselves to the transng 1972. The third table accounts :listrict litio'ation cases transferred

b d the JUr years and further provi es transferred to each district court

; action allegations.

197

T ABLE 56.- Number and types of civil cases transferred during fiscal year 1972 by order of the htdicial Panel on Multidistrict L itigation

Transferee district

---- -----------

Types of cas~s transferred Number tnmsCerred

AhLbama, Northern _______ Cast Iron Pipe Antitrust Litigation 1_ ____ 31

California: Northern- - - -- -- -- --- Gypsum Wallboard Antitrust Litigation 1 21

and 7-E leven Franchise Antitrust Liti-gation.1

CentraL------------- San Antonio, Venezuela Air Disaster 14 Litigation; Hotel Telephone Charge Antitrust Litigation 1; Air Pollution Antitrust Litigation 1; and Concrete Pipe Antitrust Litigation .l

Colorado----------- - ---- King Resources Co. Securities Lit iga- 6 tion 1 and Denver, Colo. Air Disaster Litigation.

Connect icuL--- -- -------- Master Key An titrust Litigation 1 and 5 Tweed-New Haven Airport Air Dis-aster Litigation.

District of Columbia- ----- Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation 1___ ______ 1

Florida: Middle- --------- - --- Cross-Florida Barge Canal Lit igation ____ 1 Southern------ - ----- Yarn Processing P atent Validity Lit iga- 6

tion. Illinois, Northern _______ __ Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust 13

Litigation 1 and Commodities Ex-change Commission R ate Antitrust Li tigation. 1

Indiana, Southern _____ ___ Fairland, Indiana Air D isaster Litigation_ 18 Massachusetts ________ __ __ Revenue Properties Co. Securities Litiga- 10

tion 1 and Kauffman Mutual Fund Litigation. 1

Minnesota __ ___ __ ______ __ Antibiotic D rug Antit rust Lit igation 1 4,

and IBM Antitrust Lit igation. Jvlissouri, Western ________ International House of Pancakes Fran- 6

New Hampshire ___ ______ _

New York, Southern _____ _

Ohio, Northern Oklahoma, W est~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J:>ennsylvania:

Eastern _____ __ ______ _

Western See footnote ~~ -e~~ -o~ -t~~;e~-

chise Litigation. 1

Hanover, New Hampshire Air Disaster Litigation.

Seeburg-Commonwealth United Litigat ion; 1 P enn Central Commercial Paper Litigation; Value Line Special Situation Fund Lit igation; 1 and Madison Fund Inc. Securities Litigation.1

Refrigerant Gas Antitrust Litigation 1 __ _ _

Fcur Seasons Securities Laws Litigation 1_

Plumbing Fixture Litigation; 1 Penn Central Securities Litigation; 1 and CBS Licensing Antitrust Litigation.

Suess Patent Infringem en t Litigation ___ _

• 1

7

4 5

37

10

198

TABLE 56.-Number and types of civil cases transferred during fiscal year 1.972 b order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistricl Litigation- Continued Y

Transferee di5trict Types of eases transferred -Number transferred

_________ ~--- l_--_·--------·-----·--- -

Tennessee, Western_ _ _ _ _ _ _ New Orleans, Louisiana Air Disaster Litigation.

T exas, Northern __ c _______ Las Vegas, Nev. Air Disaster Litigation; ' Mandeville, La. Air Disaster Li tigation; and Camco Patent Infringement Litigation.

West Virginia, Southern ___ Huntington, W. Va. Air Disaster Litiga-t ion.

Wisconsin, Eastern_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Antitrust Actions Against Career Academy.1

6

12

9

4

1-

Total ________ ____ _ _____ - _________ _ - - - ------ - - - -- -- - - ---- 231

1 Denoteg allegation of a class action under Rule 2:.'. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

TABLE 57.-Civil cases transferred fTom one district to anothe!' during fiscal year ended June 30,1972, by oTd er of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation


Total _______ _________________ __ __ _

District of Columbia_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -First circuit:

Nlassachusetts----- - -----------------

Received

231

1

10 New Hampshire ______ ___ _____ - - - - - - - 1

Puerto Rico _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transferred

231

5

3

2

Second circuit: Connecticu t ____________ ____ - - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - - - - - --

New York, Southern--- - ----- --- ----- 7 47 New York, Eastern _____ ___ _____ .r.- --- _ _________ 7

Third circuit: D ela ware ____ __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 New Jersey ________ ___ _________ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Pennsylvania, Eastern________________ 37 15 Pennsylvania, Western_______________ 10 2

Fourth circuit : Maryland ______ _______ ____________ _ - - - - - - - - - - - 5 North Carolina, Middle_______________ __________ 3 South Carolina ____ ____ ______________ _ - - - - - - - - - 1 Virginia, Eastern ________ _____________ ______ - - - - 1 Virginia, Western ____________________ ____ ___ - - - 1 West Virginia, Northern _____________________ - - - 1

West Virginia, Southern--------------- 9 1

Increase or

decrease

- 4

7 1

- 2

5 -40

• -7

-4 -3 22

8

-5 -3 -1 -1 -1

-1 8

transferred during fiscal year 1,Q72 by idistrict Litigation-Continued

; of cases transferred

;, Louisiana Air Disaster

ev. Air Disaster Litigation; , La. Air Disaster Litigajamco P atent Infringem ent

W. Va. Air Disaster Litiga-

Lions Against Career Acad-

ederal Rules of Civi l Procedure.

Number t ransferred

6

12

9

4

231

.ne district to another d1tring fiscal year :icial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

N urn ber of cases


231 231

1 5

10 3 1 ___ __ ____ _

2

5 ________ _ _

7

37 10

9

47 7

4 3

15 2

5 3 1 1 1 1 1

Increase or

decrease

-4

7 1

-2

5 -40 -7

-4 -3 22 8

- 5 -3 -1 -1 -1 -1

8

199

TABLE 57.-Civil cases transferred fr~. one district to another during fiscal year ended June SO, 1972, by order of the JudtClal Panel on Multidistrict Litigation-Con.

Number of cases Circui t and district

Received T ransferred

Fifth circuit: Alabama, Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31 _________ _ Florida, Middle_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _________ _ Florida, Southern_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 Georgia, Northern ____ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - ___ - _____ _ Louisiana, Eastern ___ - - _ - _ - - - _ - - - _ - - - _ - _ - __ ___ _ Louisiana, Western ________ - _ - _ - _ - ____________ --Mississippi, Sou thern ___________________ _______ _ Texas, Northern ______ _________ __ ____ 12

Texas, Southern ___ - ----------------- ------ -- --Sixth circuit : .

Kentucky, Eastern ___ - - - _ - -- - - --- - -- ___________ _ Michigan, Eastern __ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ -Ohio, Northern_______________ __ __ __ _ 4

Ohio, Southern - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 1 1 2 1 2 6

2 4 3 4

Tennessee, Western _______ - _ - _ - _ - - - _ _ 6 ___ - ___ __ _

Seventh circuit: Illinois, Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13 31 Illinois, Southern_ __ ____ __________ ____ __________ 1 Indiana, Southern_______ ___ ___ _______ 18 - -------- -Indiana, Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 Wisconsin, Eastern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 5

Eighth circuit: Iowa, Northern _" __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~Iinnesota ____ " _____________________ 4

Missouri, Western _________ - ___ - - - _ - _ - 6 Nebraska ___________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Ninth circuit: California , Northern____ __ ____________ 21 California, Eastern ________ _____ ______ - - ----- -- -

1 2 1 2

20 3

I ncrease or

decrease

31 1 2

- 1 -1 -2 -1 10

-6

- 2 -4

1 -4

6

-18 -1

18 -2 -1

-1 2 5

-2

1 -3

California, CentraL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14 14 _________ _

California, Southern _______ ____ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---Nevada ____ __ ______ __ ___________ ~~ __ - - ____ ___ _ Oregon ___ __________ ______________ ______ __ __ _ _

Washington, Western ___ ____________ _ - ___ - -- - - --

5 1 1 2

Tent h circuit : Colorado__ ___ _________ _______ ___ ____ 6 3 Kansas _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 Oklahoma, Western _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 _________ _ Oklahoma, Nor thern_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ _ _ _ 2

-

-5

• - 1 -1 - 2

3 - 4

5 -2

200

T AB L E 58.-Summary by district of civil cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for the period J uly 7, 1968 to June 30, 1972

Type of case received

Actions transferred (total to date)

District

TotaL ___ __ _________ ____ ___ _____ _ _

Alabama:

Into district

1, 406

Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 31 Middle __ ___ ___ ____ ____ ________ __ ______ ___ ___ _ southern ____ ____ ____ ___ ___ ___ __ _______ __ ____ _

Alaska ____ ___ ___ _________ __ __ __ __ __________ _____ _ Arizona_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ____ _

Arkansas: Eastern __ _______ ______ ____ __ __________ ____ ___ _ western __ ___ ____ __ __ __________________ ______ _

California : Northern ___ ____ _________ _ 2 83 East ern ____ __ __ ______ ___ _ - __ ' ______ - - ___ ___ __ --Cen traL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 54 Southern ___ __ _____ ______ __ ________ _ ___ ___ __ --

Colorado _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 6 Connecticut_ ___ __ ___ ____ ______ 5 13 Delaware _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 2 District of Columbia___________ 7 23 Florida:

Northern ___ _____ _______ - - __ __ _ -- - - - --- - - - - - --Middle_ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ 8 1 Southern ______ _____ ___ ___ 9 10

Georgia : Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ __ - _ _ __ ___ _ - - -

Southern ____ ____ __ _ - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --. HawaiL __ ___ __ __ ___ __ ____ - _ - - __ ___ _ - - - - __ - - - _ - - - -

Illinois: Northern_______________ __ 10 180 Southern __________ ______ _ ________ - - ______ - - --

. 0.

Indiana: Northern ______________ _ - - ____ __ ___ - __ - _ - _ -- - -Southern___ ______________ 11 68

Iowa: Northern _____ ___ ___ - _ ~ - - - - __ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Southern _____ ___ ___ ___ _ - - ____ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

]{ansas_____________ _______ ___ 12 49 ]{entucky:

Eastern________ ___ ___ _____ 13 54 Western _____ _________________ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Louisiana: Eastern __ _______ ______________ _______________ _

Western __ ________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --

Out of district

1,406

8 3 3 2

14

4 1

163 4

55 11 8 6 6

25

3 2

11

6 1 1

198 1

3 4

1 6

lIS

9 ::l

9 3

Net galn/loss

23 - 3 -3 -2

-14

-4 -1

- 80 -4 -1

-11 -2

7 -4 -2

-3 -1 -1

-6 -1 -1

-18 -1

- 3 64

- 1 -6 31

45 -3

-9 -3

o zses transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for 68 to June 30, 1972

Actions transferred (total to date) case ed

1

Into _ district

1,406

31 - - - - ----------- - -- ----------

- - -- ----------

- - -- --- --- ----

. - - - - ------ -- --

. - - -- -- ------ - -

2 83 .- - -- ----------

3 54 - - - -- ------ -- --

4 6 5 13 6 2 7 23

- - - -- ----------

8 1 9 10

- - - -- ------- ---- - - -- - - --- - - ---- - - -- ----------

10 180 - - - -- ----------

- - - -- ----------11 68

- - - -- ----------- - - -- --- - - - --- -

12 49

13 54 - ----- ----------

------ ----------- - - - -- ----------

Out of district

1,406

8 3 3 2

14

4

163 4

55 11 8 6 6

25

3 2

11

6 1 1

198

3 4

1 6

11)

9 0

9 3

Net galnf\oss

23 -3 - 3 -2

-14

-4 -1

-80 -4 -1

-11 -2

7 -4 -2

-3 - 1 -1

-6 - 1 -1

-18 -1

-3 64

-1 -6 31

45 -3

-9 -3

201

T ABLE 58.-Summary by district of civil cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for the period July 7, 1968 to June 30, 1972- Continued


District T~~~~:d"e 1---------.---------,---------Into

district Out of district

Net galnf\oss

Maryland____ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ __ _ 14 5 27 -22 Massachusetts___ ______ __ ___ ___ 15 29 29 _________ _ Michigan:

Eastern____ __ ___ __ _____ ___ 16 1 Western _________ ____ _________ __ ______ _______ _

Minnesota _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17 10 Mississippi, Southern ____________ ______ ____________ _

Missouri: Eastern ___ _____ ________ _______ ___ ___ _________ _ Western _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 18 6

iVlontana - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Nebraska_ - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - _ - _ - _______ - - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - --N evada_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --New Hampshire ________ ____ __ _ 19 24 New Jersey___ ______ ____ ___ ___ 20 10 New York:

Northern ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Southern __ ______ ________ _

21 22

2 163

Eastern ______ ___________________ __ ___ ________ _ Western ___ ___ _____ __ ______ __ __ _ - - - - _________ _

North Carolina: Eastern _______ _____ _____ _______ _____ _______ __ _ Middle _______ _____ _______ ____ ______ _________ _ Western___ ___ ____ ________ 23 2

Ohio: Northern ___ ____ _____ ____ _ Southern _____ _______ _____ _

Oklahoma:

24 25

4 6

18 2

26 2

17 17

1 13

3

14

4 260

25 4

5 5

14 76

Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 Eastern__ _____ ____________ 26 7 _________ _ Western___ ___ ____________ 27 14 4

Oregon _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ____ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 Pennsyl vania:

Eastern _____ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28 459 Middle ___ __ ________ ____ __ ____ ____ __ ____ __ ___ _ Western _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 29 10

Puerto Rico_ ___ __ _ _ __ __ ____ _ __ 30 19 Rhode Island

i~~~~s~~~~~:~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ Eastern

~~~~~;~-~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

176-921 0- 73 - 15

58 20 21 5 1 7 2

4 3 5

-17 - 2

-16 - 2

-17 -11 -1

-13 -3 24

- 4

- 2 - 97 -25

- 4

-5 - 5

2

- 10 - 70

-3 7

10 • - 5

401 - 20 - 11

14 - 1 - 7 - 2

- 4 -3

1

202

T ALBE 58.-Summary by d7'strict of civil cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for the period july 7, 1968 to J une 30, 1972-Continued -

Type of case received


District

T exas: Northern _____ _____ ______ _ Southern ____ ___________ _ _

32 33

Into district

12 4

Western _____________________________________ _ Utah ____________________________________________ _ Vermon t _________________________________________ _

Virginia: Eastern ______________________________________ _ Western _____ ____ ____________________________ _

Washington, Western _____________________________ _

West Virginia: Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ Southern__ ____ ____________ 34 35

Wisconsin: Eastern ______ ____________ _ 35 4 Western ____ ______ _________________ _____ _____ _

Type of civil case received

(1) Cast Iron Pipe Antitrust Litigation.1

Out of district

21 13

3 1

16

19 2

17

1 2

13 6

Net gain/loss

-9 -9 -3 -1

-16

-19 -2

- : 7

-1 33

-9 -6

(2) Gypsum Wallboard Antitrust Litiga,tion; 1 Hong Kong Air Disaster Litigation; Koratron Patent Litigation; Water Meter Antitrust Litigation; 1 Western Liquid Asphalt Litigation; 1 and 7-Eleven Franchise Antitrust Litigation.1

.

(3) "West of the Rockies" Concrete Pipe Antitrust Litigation; 1

Air Pollution Antitrust Litigation; 1 Santa Monica Bay Air Disaster Litigation; Embro Patent Infringement Litigation; San Antonio, Venezuela Air Disaster Li~gation; and Hotel Telepltone Charge Antitrust Litigation.l

(4) King Resources Company Securities Litigation 1 and Denver, Colorado Air Disaster Litigation.

(5) Master Key Antitrust Litigation 1 and Tweed-New Haven Airport Air Disaster Litigation.

(6) Frost Patent Litigation. (7) Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation land Alseo-Harvard Fraud

Litigation.

1 Denotes allegation of :l class action under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

es transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for ne 30, 1972-Continued

Actions transferred (total to date) se

;2

13 . - -. -----

- - -- --- --

- --34

35 - --

Into district

12 4

------------------------------

-- ----- -----------------------

----------35

4 ----------

tigation.1

Out of district

21 13

3 1

16

19 2

17

1 2

13 6

Net gainf\oss

-9 -9 -3 -1

-16

-19 -2

-.7

-1 33

-9 -6

ust Litigation; 1 Hong Kong Air 'atent Litigation; Water Meter jquid Asphalt Litigation; 1 and 19ation.1

crete Pipe Antitrust Litigation; 1

n; 1 Santa Monica Bay Air Disnfringement Litigation; San Anitigation; and Hotel Telephone

Securities Litigation 1 and DenLon. 19ation 1 and Tweed-New Haven

ation 1 and Alsco-Harvard Fraud

under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil

203

(8) Cross-Florida Barge Canal Litigation. (9) Maracaibo, Venezuela Air Disaster Litigation and Yarn

Processing Patent Validity Litigation. (10) Children's Books Litigation; 1 Admission Ticket Litiga

tion ; Butterfield Patent Infringement Litigation; Air Fare Litigation; 1 Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust Litigation; 1 and Conunodities Excha.nge Commission Rate Antitrust Litigation.1

(11) Fairland, Indiana Air Disaster Litigation. (12) Grain Shipment Litigation. (13) Constance, Kentucky Air Disaster Litigations. (14) Kaehni Patent Litigation. (15) Revenue Properties Company Securities Litigation; 1 CBS

Color Tube Patent Litigation; and Kauffman Mutual Fund Litigation.1

(16) Willingham Pa,tent Litigation. (17) Antibiotic Drug Litigation (Non-Settling Cases) 1 and IBM

Antitrust Litigation. (18) ~nternational House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation.1

(19) Hanover, New Hampshire Air Disaster Litigation. (20) Fourth Class Postage Regulation Litigation. (21) Litigation Involving Welch & Morgan. (22) Protection Device Antitrust Litigation; 1 Antibiotic Drug

Litigation (Settling Cases) ; 1 Seeburg-Commonwealth United Litigation ; 1 Penn Central Conunercial Paper Litigation; 1 Carrom Trademark Litigation; Brown Company Securities Litigation; 1

Value Line Special Situation Fund Litigation; 1 and Madison Fund, Inc. Securities Litigation. .

(23) Hendersonville, North Carolina Air Disaster Litigation. (24) Refrigerant Gas Antitrust Litigation.1

(25) Dayton, Ohio Air Disaster: Litigation. (26) Ardmore, Oklahoma Air Disaster Litigation. (27) Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation.1

•

(28) Plumbing Fixture Litigation; 1 Concrete Pipe Antitrust Litigation; 1 Penn Central Securities Litigation· 1 and CBS Licens-. ' mg Antitrust Litigation.

(29) Suess Patent Infringement Litigation. (30) San Juan, Puerto Rico Air Disaster Litigation.

1 Denotes allegation of a class action under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

204

(31) New Orleans, Louisiana Air Disaster Litigation. (32) Las Vegas, Nevada Air Disaster Litigation; Mandeville,

Louisiana Air Disaster Litigation; and Cameo Patent Infringement Litigation.

(33) Westec Corporation Litigation. (34) Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation and Huntington, West

Virginia Air Disaster Litigation. (35) Career Academy Antitrust Litigation.1

Econornic Stabilization Act 2

The 1971 amendments to the Economic Stabilization Act of Hf70 provided that:

(1) exclusive jurisdiction of cases arising under this Act shall lie in the United States district courts, and such cases shall not be subjeci to any limitation with respeci to amount in controversy;

(2) permits other courts of competent jurisdictJion to determine issues relating to the Act when such issues are raised by way of defense, other than a defense based on the constitutionality of the act or the validity of action taken by any agency under the Act;

(3) creates a Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals arising under the Aci, amd over an constitutional questions involving the Act or the validity of any regulation or order issued thereunder;

(4) the district court must certify all c011stitutional questJions arising under the Act or questions involving the validity of any regulation or order issued thereunder; the injunctive authority of the district c<?urt is limited to enjoining temporarily or permanently the application of a particular regulation O'r order to a person who is a party to litig!lltion before it; and,

(5) the grounds requisite for invalidating a regulation or order are those listed in 5 USC 706 (2) .

In addition to future .cases the provisions relating to judicial review (Section 211 of the Act) ,

.. . apply to any actions or suits pending in any court, Federal or State, on the clate of enactment of this section in which no final order or judgment has been rendered.

1 Denotes allegation of a class action under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

, Executive Order 11615, August 15, 1971 and Amendments to P.L. 92-210, December 22, 1971.

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1973

178

Transfer of Cases Under 28 U.S.C. 1407

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred during the fiscal year 224 civil actions which were originally filed in 46 districts to 20 distrigts. In 1972, 231 civil cases were transferred from 45 district courts to 23 courts for the purpose of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In 1971, 305 cases filed in 53 districts were transferred by the Panel to 19 different district court.s.

The district judge to whom cases have been assigned by the Panel has the responsibility of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in those cases. Unless a case is closed in the transferee court or ordered transferred by the transferee judge to the transferee or other district under 28 U.S.G. 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. 1406, each of the transferred actions will, at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, be remanded by the Panel for trial to the district where the action was originally filed.

Since the enactment of the Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April 29, 1968 (Public Law 90-296) , which established the Judicial Panel, there have been 1,630 transfers of civil cases to which were joined 1,234 civil actions originally filed in the districts receiving the transfers (referred to as transferee districts). Thus, 2,864 cases have been part of Section 1407 pretrial proceedings in the district courts and by June 30, 1973, 1,189 had been either remanded by the Panel or terminated by the transferee courts. The balance of 1,675 multidistrict litigation cases on the district court dockets is 5.3 percent higher than the 1,590 reported a year ago.

The first two of the accompanying tables provide statistics on the districts transferring and receiving cases by order of the Judicial Panel during 1973. The third table distributes the 1,630 transfers by district and further supplies the names of the multidistrict litigations together with ideHtification of those which ontain allegations of a class action under Rule 23, "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

1)7

t Litigation transferred during . were originally filed in 46 disril cases were transferred from purpose of coordinated or con'1 305 cases filed in 53 districts , different district courts. ave been assigned by the Panel g coordinated or consolidated Unless a case is closed in the red by the transferee judge to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. ; will, at the conclusion of prete Panel for trial to the district

istrict Litigation Act, approved ), which established the Judi~ansfers of civil cases to which :inally filed in the districts reas transferee districts). Thus, )n 1407 pretrial proceedings in 1973, 1,189 had been either rei by the transferee courts. The ,tion cases on the district court he 1,590 reported a year ago. mg tables provide statistics on 'ing cases by order of the Judi:tble distributes the 1,630 trans; the names of the multidistrict jion of those which contain alule 23, "Federal Rules of Civil

179

T ABL E 39a.-Number an d types of cases transferred during fiscal year 1973 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

TransCeree district

Alabama, Northern ________ _ California, Northern ______ _

California, CcntraL __ ______ _

Colorado __________ ___ ___ . ___ _ Connecticut _________ __ ____ _ _

D istrict oC Columbia ______ __ F lorida, Southern __________ _

Illinois. Northern __ ________ _

Indiana, Southern .. ____ ____ _ Kansas ________ -- -- -- -- -- , __ _ Massachusetts _____ __ .. ____ __

Minnesota .. ___ _ -- -- -- - - - ___ _ Missouri, Western . _____ _ ._._

New Hampshire _ -----------New York, Southern_ .. ____ _

Oklahoma, Western .. ______ __ Pennsyl vania, Eastern __ __ __

Pennsylvania, Western ____ __ Washington, Westcrn __ __ __ __ West Virginia, Southern ___ __

T ypes oi cases transCerred

Cast Iron P ipe Antitrust Litiga tion (MD L-Rl)1 ______________ _ Gl'psum Wallboard Antit urst Li tigation (MDL-14)1; Juneau,

Ahiska, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-107); and Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Lit igation (M DL-124) .1

T oronto International Airport Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-103); and Duarte, Calif. , Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-I06).

King R esources Securit ies Li t igation (MDL-i 9)1.- ________ ____ _ Master Key Antitrust Litigatio n (MD L-45)! _______________ ~ __ National Student Marketi ng Litigation (MDL -105) __ ____ ____ _ Yarn Processing Patent Validity Lit igation (MD L-82) ;

Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litigation (M DL-120) ; and [·'Iorida Everglades Ail' Disaster Litigation (MDL- 139).

Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust Litigation (MDL-65)1 Commodities Exchange Commission R ate Antitrust Litigation (MD L-99)'; Convenient Food Mar t Franchise Litiga-tion (MD L-103) ; and AMF Computerized Cash Register Contracts Litigation (YlDL-130) .

Aviation Products Liability Litigation (MDL-I04) __________ __ Silver Plume, Colo., Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-112) ______ _ Viatron Computer Systems Corp. Securities Litigation (MDL-

138).1 Antibiotic Drug Litigation (nonsettling cases) (MDL-lO)I ____ _ Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation (MD L-83)I, Transit

Co. Tire Antitrust Litigation (MDL-111)I; and Cessna AircraCt Distributorship Antitrust Litigation (MD L-l23).

Burlingt on, Vermont, Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-132) __ __ _ Penn Central Commercial Paper Litigation (MDL-56A) ;

Texas Gulf Sulphur Securities Litigation (MDL-l00)I; Caesars Palace Securities Litigation (MDL-100)1 ; Atlantic Department Stores, Inc. , Litigation (MDL-113)1; a nd Gen-eral Adj ustment Bureau Anti t rust Lit igation (MDL-127)1.

Four Seasono Securit.ies Laws Litigatio n (MDL-55)1 __________ _ Plumbing Fixture Li t.igation (MD L-3)1; Penn Central Securi

t ies Litigation (MD L-56)1; REA Express, Inc. Private Treble-Damage Antitrust Liti!(ation (MDL-115) ; Pro-Cessional Hockey Antitrust Litigation (MDL-119); and Pellston, Michigan, Air Disaster Li tigation (MD L-125) .

Number trans. Cerred

2 40

17

3 3

14

19

13

22

3 9

9 22

Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation (MD L-109)1 ______ ____ 14 Atlantic City, N.J. , Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-114) _______ 6 Huntington, W. Va., .Ai r Disaster Litigation (MDL-94) ________ ~ ___ 1_2

TotaL_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ _ ____ __ ___ _ _ _ _____ ___ ____ __ __ _ _ ____ __ __ _ ___ __ __ _ _ ________ ZM

1 Denotes allegation of a class action under Rule 23, "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

180

TABLE 39b.-Civil cases tl'ansferred from one distn'cl to another dw-ing fiscal year ended June 30, 1973, by order of the J udicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation


Received

Total. ___ __ ___ ____ __________ ________ ____ _________ ______ _ 224

District of Coiumbia __ ________ __ ____ ____ _____ _________ _____ __ _

First circuit ________ __ ______ __ __________________________ _ 4

Maine __ __________ ____ ___ ________ ___ __ ___________________ ____ __ __ _______ ___ _ _ Massachusetts_ _ _ ___ __ __ ___ _ _______ ___ ___ __ _ __ __ ____ __ __ __ __ __ 1 New Hampshire__ __ ____ ______ ___ __ ___________ _________ __ __ ___ 3

Second circuit _____ __ _____ ____ _____ -____________ -____ ___ _ 12

Connecticut. _ _ __ __ __ _ ______ ____ __ ____ _____ _____ _____ ____ __ _ _ _ 3

New York, Southern.____ _____ ______ ___ ____ ____ __ ___ ____ ______ 9 New York, Eastern _____ ___ ~ _______ ______ ___ _______ __ _____ __ . ______ __ ___ __ _

Vermont ______ __________ ______ _____ _ - -- -- - - - -- -- - - __ -- --- -- -- - -- - -- - - - - -- -- -

Third circuit ______________ __ __ ______ ____ _____________ __ _ 36

New Jersey ____________________________________ ___________ _________________ _ Pennsylvania, Eastern_ _ ___ _ _ ____ _______ _______________ _ _ ____ 22 Pennsylvania, lVliddle ________________________________ _______ ___ ___ ___ ______ _ P ennsylvania, Western_______ ___ _______ __ _ ____ __________ ___ __ 14

Fourth circuit ___ _____ ______ ____ ___ ______ ___ __ ___ __ __ ___ _ 12

North Carolina, Eastern ______ _______ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ ___ ____ ____ __ ___ ___ __ ___ _ North Carolina, Western __ ___ ___ _____________ _________ ____ _____ _____ ______ _

West Virginia, Southern______________________________________ 12

Transferred

224

8

8

2

39

1 32

14

4 8

2

Increase Or decrease

- 1

- 4

- 2 - 4

- 27

2 - 23 - 5 - 1

22

- 4 14

- 1 13

10

- 1 -1 12

1======1======1===== Fifth circuiL ______ _______ __ _________________ __ ___ ___ ___ _ 16 22 - 6

Alabama, Northern_ _ _ ____ __ ____ ___ _______ __ ___ _________ ____ _ 2 2 _________ ____ _

Florida, lVliddle ___ ____ _______ ____ __ __ __ ___ __ _______ ___ ___ ___ ___ ______ __ ____ _ -1 Florida, Southern__ ____ _ __________ ____ _____ _______ ___ ___ __ ___ _ 14 6 8 Georgia, Northern __ _______ ________ ___ ___ __ __ _____ ____ _______________ - -____ _ - 1 T exas, Eastern __ _________________ __ ______ ___ _____ __ _______ ____ _____ _____ __ _ 1 - 1 Texas, N orthern ___ ___ ____ ___ ______ __ _____ __ ___ __ ___ _______ __ ___ ______ -____ _ 6 - 6 T exas, Sou thern _______ ______ ___ __ ___ ____ ____ ___ ""' __________________ ______ --

1======1======1===== 5 I .. - 5

--'- -- ~-

district to another during fiscal year :1 Panel on lvIultidistl'ict Litigation

Number of cases

Received

224

7

4

1 3

12

3 9

36

22

14

12

Transferred

224

8

8

2 5

39

1 32

5

14

4 8

2

12 _____________ _

16 22


-1

- 4

- 2 - 4

2

- 27

2 - 23 - 5 - 1

22

- 4 14

-1 13

10

- 1 - 1 12

- 6

2 2 ____ ___ ___ ___ _

14

1 6

- 1

8 - 1

- 1 - 6 - 5

181

T ABL E 39b.-Civil cases transferred /Tom one district to another during fisca l year ended June 30, 1973, by order of tht: Judicial Panel on lvIultidisb'ict L itigation-Cont.

Number of cases Circui t and district

R eceived

Sixth circuit. ____________________________________ ____ _________ __ _____ _

Kentucky, Eastern _______________________________ _________________________ _ Michigan, Eastern __ _____ _______________________ ___ ____ __ __ __ ___ ___ ______ __ _ Michigan, Western ________________ ____________________________ ____________ _ Ohio, N orthern ____________________________________________________________ _ Ohio, Southern ____ __ ____ ___ __ __ ____ __________ ___ _______ ______ ___ __ ____ ____ _

Seventh circuit ________ : ____________ __ ____ ___ ________ __ _ _ 32

Illinois, Northern__ __ _____ ____ _ _ _____ _ _ _ ____ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _____ _ _ _ 19 Indiana, Northern ________________________ _________________________________ _ Indiana, Sou thern_ __ _ __ _ __ __ _____ ____ _ ___________ _ _ _ ___ _____ _ 13 Wisconsin, Eastern ____ ____ _________ _______________________________________ _

Eighth circuit ___ _________ ___ _____ ______________ ________ _ 23

Minnesota _________________________________ ____________ -- ____ _

Transferred

17

2

1 3 5

12

7 3

12

9 Missouri, Eastern______ _ _ ______ __ ____ ____ ___ _ __ ___ _____ __ _____ ____ ___ ___ __ __ 1 Missouri, Western_ ____ ___ ___________ __ ___ _ _____ ___ _________ __ 22 ____ _____ ____ _

Nebraska ___________ -- -------- - -- ------ -- -- - - - - - ---- - --- -_ - ___ -_ -___ ___ ____ _ Sou th Dakota ____ ____ __ __ ____ ________ __ __________ ____ ______ ____ ____ ______ _ _

Nin th circui t _________________________ __ ______ __________ _ 63

Alaska ________________________________ __ _______ ________ ------- -___ __ _______ _

Arizona. ___ ____ - -- ------ - . --- - --- -- . - - -- - - - ------------ --- ---- ---- __ -_ - - -. __ California, Northern________ _ ___ _ ___ ___ _______ ___ ___ ____ ___ __ _ 40 California, CentraL _ _ _ _ __ ___ ___ _ __ ______ _____ ______ _____ _ _ ___ 17 Idaho _____ ____ ______ ______ ----- __ - - -- ___ -- ---- ----_ - - - - __ -- __ - _____ ________ _ Nevada __ __ _____________ __ ----- _____ - _________ - - - - -_ - -- - - -- ___ -- ____ --- ____ _ Oregon ____________ _____ - __ ----- ---- - ------ ___ - - -- - - - ------ --- -___ -________ _ Washington, Western___ __ _ ____________ _ __ ___ __ _ ___ _ ___ _____ _ _ _ 6

71

14 4

2 2

10 21


-17

- 2 - 6 - 1 -3 - 5

20

12 - 3 12 -1

11

- 8 - 1 22

- 1 - 1

- 8

-14 - 4 31 8

- 2 - 2

-10 -15

Tenth circuit. ____ _____ ____ ________________ ______ ______ _ 19 19 _____________ _

Colorado_____ __ ____ _____ __ _____ ____ ___ ______ __ ______ ____ __ __ _ _ 3 Kansas __ ____ _____ __________________ _______ ___ __ __ ____ __ _____ _ Oklahoma, Western___ _ _ __ ____ _____ ______ _ ___ _ ____ _____ ____ __ 9 Utah _______________________ _______________________ "'. ________ _ ___ __ ________ _

2 4

12 •

2

5 -12

182

TABLE 39c.-Summary by district of civil cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407, for the period July 7, 1968 to June 30, 1973

District Type of case received


TotaL ___________________________ __ ____________ _ _

Alabama:

Into district

1,630

Northern_____________ ____ _____ _____ 1 33 Middle __ ______ _________ ___________________________ _______ _________ _ Southern _________ ____ ______ ___ ______ ______________________ = _______ _

Alaska _______________________ _____________________ __ __________________ _ Arizona ______________ __________ __ ________ ____ ___ ______ ___ __________ ___ _

Arkansas: Eastern ______ __ __________________ __ _____ ____ ____________ __ ____ ____ _ Western _____ __________________________________ ______ ______________ _

California: N orthern ___________ _______ ________ _ 123 Eastern ___________ __ __________ ___ _______________________ __________ _

CentraL___________________________ 3 71 Southern ______________________ ___ _________________________________ _

Colorado_ __________ ____________________ 4 9 Connecticut_ _______ ____________________ 5 16 Delaware______________________________ 2 District of Columbia _________________ _ _ 30 Florida:

Northern ______________________ _______ __ ___ __ ___ __________ _____ ____ _

Middle_ ___________ _________________ 8 1 Southern_______ __ _______ _ _________ _ 24

Georgia: Northern __________ ____ _________ ____________ __ __________ __ _________ _ Southern ______________________ ___ ______________ __ _________________ _

Ha\vaii __ ______ . ___ . _______________ ___________________ ____ _ . ____ _______ _ Idaho ___________________________ ___ ____ __________ __ ______ _____ ________ _

Illinois: Northern___ __ _______________ ______ _ 10 199 Southern _________ ______ _____ ______________________________________ _

Indiana: Northern _____ _____ ____________________ __ _______________ ___________ _

Southern____ _____ __ ________________ 11 81 Iowa:

Northern _________ ____ _____________________________ __ ______________ _ Southern _________________________________ ____ __ ___________________ _

K ansas________ __ ______ ____________ _____ 12 56 Kentucky:

Eastern_______ ___ __________________ 13 54 Western __________ __ ________________________ ___ _________ ____ _______ _

Louisiana: Eastern ___________ _____________ __ ____ _ -- __________ _ --- _____ ---- - ---Western _______ _______________ ________ --- ______ - ---- ______ ___ ______ _

See footnote at end of table_

Out of district

1,630

10 3 3

16 18

4 1

172 4

64 11 9 7 6

33

3 3

17

1 2

205

1 6

20

11 3

9 3

Net gain/loss

--- -- --- - ----.

23 -3 - 3

-16 -18

- 4 - 1

-49 -4

-11 ---------------.

•

- 4 - 3

- 3 -2

7

-7 - 1 -1

-2

-6 -1

- 6 76

-1

-6 36

43 -3

- 9 -3

;es transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407, I to June 30, 1973


Into district

1,630

33

123

71

16 2

30

1 24

199

81

56

54

Out of district

1,630

10 3 3

16 18

4

172 4

64 11

7 6

33

3 3

17

7 1

2

205

6

20

11 3

3

Net gain/loss

23 -3 -3

-16 -18

- 4 -1

-49 - 4

7 -11

----------------

- 4 -3

-3 -2

- 7 -1 -1 - 2

- 6 - 1

- 6 76

-1

-6 36

43 -3

-9 -3

183

TABLE 39c.-Summary by district of civil cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407, for the period July 7, 1968 to J une 30, 1973-Continued

A ctions transferred (total to date) District Type of

case received Into

district

Maine _____ . ___ _____________________ __ _________________________ ____ ____ _ Maryland __ .__ ____ ______ _________ ______ 14 5 Massachusetts ______ .___ __ ___ _ __ _____ __ _ 15 30

Michigan: Eastern __ ____ ______________ ______ _ _ 16 Western _____ _____ _____ ___ ___ _ . ___ ____ _______________ __ ____ . ___ ____ _

Minnesota __ ___ _____ _________ .. __ ___ _____ 17 11 Mississippi, Southern __________ - ______________________ ____ ___ - ___ _____ _

Missouri: E ast ern . . ____ __ . _______ ____ _________________ ____ ____ _____________ _ _ Western __ _ . _____________ ___ ___ __ __ _ 18 28

Montana ______________ __ _______________ - __________ ___ __ ----------------

Nebraska __ ______ .. ____ ___ ___ - -- - -- - - -- --- ---- ----- --- - __________ - __ ---N evada __ __ _______ __ _____ _ . ____ . ______ . ----- ---------- - - __________ ____ _

New Ham pshire ___________ ___ ____ ____ _ 19 27 New J ersey ___ ________________________ . 20 10

New York: Northern__________________________ 21 2 Sou t h ern. _______ ___ -_ - __ - - _ - _ - - - - - _ 22 172

Eastern ____________ --- -- -- ----- - --- . ---- -- ---- ----- ------- ---------Western_. _______ _ - -- ____ ------ ---- - ------------- - - - - ----- ----------

North Carolina: E astern_ . ____ ____ __ -_ - ______ . --- - -- __ - ______ __ - --- - -- - ------------ -Middle __ . ________________________ -- ________ --- - - - -- --- -- -- - ------ - -Western__ ________ ___ _________ ______ 23 2

Ohio: Northern ____ . ________________ ____ --Southern __ . __ __ __________ ____ - ___ --

Oklahoma:

24 25

4 6

Out of district

2 27 34

24 3

35 2

18 17

14 5 1

18

4 292 30

4

Ii 81

Nortbern__________ _____ ____________ ________ _______ _ _______________ _ 3 E astern_ ___ _____ _______ ____________ 26 7 ______________ _ _

Western____ __ __________ ___ _________ 27 23 8 Oregon ____ ___ ____ ____________ _________ _ ___________ _____ ---- -- - -- ----- - -

Pennsylvania: Eastern ____ _ . __ _________ ____ .______ 28 481 l\IIiddle ___ ____ _______ ________________________________________ --- ----

Western___________________ ____ __ ___ 29 24 Puerto Rico_ ______ ____________ ___ ___ __ 30 19 Rhode Island _____ ___________ ___ ___ ____ ______ ______________ _______ ___ _ Soutb Carolina _____________________ _____ ________ __ : _________________ _ _ South Dakota __________________ __ ___________ __________________________ _

Tennessee: Eastern __________________ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ____ _____ ____ _____________ _ Middle_. ______ _________________ ___ _______ __ __ ___ ___________ ______ _ _

Western_ ____________________ __ _____ 31 6

See foot notes at end of table.

15

66 21 22

7 3

4 3 5

Net • gain/lo ss

- 2 - 22 - 4

- 23 - 3

- 24 - .2

- 18 11

-1 - 14 -5 26

- 8

- 2 -120 -30 - 4

-6 -5

-13 -75

-3

15 -15

415 -21 - 2 14

• -1 -7 -3

- 4 -3

184

T ABLE 39c.- Summal'Y by distl'ict of civil cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for the period J u ly 7, 1968 to J une 30, 1973-Continued '

District Typeol case received

Actions translerred (total to date)

Texas:

Into district

Eastern ... . ...... ... ..... .... . . _ ......... _ . . . ............... . .... . . Northern .... . . ...... .. ....... ... . . _ 32 12 Southern .... _. __ . _ . ..... . .. . _.. . . .. 33 4 Western_ .... ... .... . . .... ...... . ...... . .. .. . .. .. . . __ . .... ...... ... .

Utah ....... _ . . .. __ _ ..•. .. _ ..... _ . . . . . _ .... ____ ... . . ___ .... .. . ..... . _ . . Vermont .. . . ..... . ...... . ...... ___ .. .. __ . .. ___ ....... _ ...... .. ... _ ._ .. . Virginia :

Eastern ... . .... . . ......... . ... .... .. . .......... _ .......... ....... . . Western ....... _ .. . .... _ .. . ... . ..... _ .... . .. _ .. . _ . _ .. . ... ..... ... .. .

Washington, Western ............ _. .... 34 6 West Virginia :

Northern . .... . ... . . .... _ . ..... ... _ ... _ . ... .. ... _ .... _ ..... _ ....... . Southern ... _. _ . ... ...... . _ .... . ... __ 35 47

Wisconsin: Eastern . .. .. _ ... .. . . _ .. . ..... ..... _ 36 4 Western .... _ . . . .......... ___ . ..... _ . ... _ .. . . . _____ . . . __ .. ... __ .... .

Out of Net district gain/loss

27 18 3

13 17

19 2

38

2

14 6

- 1 - 15 - 14 - 3

-13 - 17

- 19 - 2

-32

-1 45

- 10 - 6

I Cast Iron Pipe Antitrust Litigation (MDL-81). 'Gypsum Wallboard Antitrust Litigation (MDL-14);* Hong Kong Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-15)'

Koratron Patent Li tigation (MDL-20); Water Meter Antitrust Litigation' (MDL-23);* Western Liquid Asphalt Litigation (MD L-24) ;* 7-Eleven Franchise Antitrust Litigation (MDL-97);" Juneau, Alaska Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-I07); Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation (MD L-I24).*

3 "West of the Rockies" Concrete P ipe Antitrust Litigation (MDL-25);* Air Pollution Antitrust Litiga· gation (MD L-31);* Santa Monica Bay Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-34); Embro Patent Infringement Litigation (MDL-57); San Antonio, Venezuela Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-72); Hotel Telephone Charge Antitrust Litigation (MD L-89);* Toro nto International Airport Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-I03); Duarte, California Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-I06) .

• King Resources Company Securities Litigation (MDL-79) ;* Denver, Colorado Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-88).

'Master Key Antitrust Litigation (MDL-45);* Tweed·New Haven Airport Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-96) .

'Frost Patent Litigation (MD L-46) .* 1 Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation (MDL-50);* Alsco·Harvard Fraud Litigation (MDL-54); National

Student Marketing Litigation (MD L-I05) . 8 Cross·Florida Barge Canal Litigation (MDL-70). 'Maracaibo, Venezuela Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-48); Yam Processing Patent Validity Litigation

(MDL-82); Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust Litigation (MD L-120);* Florida Everglades Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-139).

lS transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407, SO, 1973-Continued


Into district

12 4

47

4

Out of district

27 18 3

13 17

19 2

38

14 6

Net gainf\oss

-1 - 15 - 14 - 3

-13 -17

- 19 -2

-32

-1 45

-10 - 6

Hong Kong Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-15); . titrust Litigation' (MDL-23);* Western LiqUId rust Litigation (MDL-97);* Juneau, Alaska Air ; and Antitrust Litigation (MDL-I24).* .. ;ion (MD L-25);* Air Pollution Antitrust Lltlga'ation (MDL-34); Embro Patent Infnngement ~ Litigation (MD L-72) ; Hotel Telephone Charge I Airport Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-l03);

- 79);* Denver, Colorado Air Disaster Litigation

j-New Haven Airport Air Disaster Litigation

Iarvard Fraud Litigation (MDL-54); National

48) ' Yam Processing Patent Validity Litigation ,n CMDL-120);* Florida Everglades Air Disaster

185

10 Childrens' Books Li tigation (MDL-2);* Admission Ticket Litigation (MDL-21); Butterfield Patent Infringement Litigation (MDL-29); Air Fare Litigation (MDL-58);* Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust Litigation (MD L-65); 'Commodities Exchange Commissiou R ate Antitrust Litigation (MDL-99) ;* Convenient Food Mart Franchise Litigation (MDL-I08);* AMF Computerized Cash Register Contracts Litigation (MDL-130).

11 Fairland, Indiana Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-30); Aviation Product Liability Litigation (MDL-104) .

"Grain Shipment Litigation (MDL-22); Silver Plume, Colorado Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-H2). Il Constance, Kentucky Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-8A and 8B) . 14 Kaehni Patent Litigation (MDL-36) . "Revenue Properties Company Securities Litigation (MDL-32);* CBS Color Tube Patent Litigation

(MDL-69); Kauffman Mutual Fnnd Litigation (MDL-78);* Viatron Computer Systems Corporation Securities Litigation (MDL-138).

10 Willingham Patent Litigation (MDr~60). 17 Antibiotic Drug Litigation (Non-Settling Cases) (MDL-l0);* IBM Antitrust Litigation (MDL-18) . "International House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation (MDL-77) ; Midwest Milk MonopOlization

Litigation (MDL-83)*; Transit Company Tire Antitrust Litigation (MDL-ll1)*; Cessna Aircraft Distributorship Antitrust Litigation (MDL-123).

"Hanover, New Hampshire Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-43); Bmlington, Vermont Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-132).

20 Fourth Class Postage Regulation Litigation (MD L-16) . 21 Litigation Involving Welch & Morgan (MDL-71). 22 Protection Device Antitrust Litigation (MDL-9); Antibiotic Drug Litigation (Settling Cases) (MDL-

10); Seeburg-Co=onwealth United Litigation (MDL-37); PeUll Central Commercial Paper Ligitation (MDL-56A); Canom Trademark Litigation (MDL-61) ; Brown Company SecUlities Litigation (MD L-67); Value Line Special Situation Fund Litigation (MDL-75); Madison Fund, Inc. Securi ties Litigation (MD L-87); T exas Gnlf Sulphur Securities Litigation (MDL-IOO)'; Caesars Palace Securities Litigation (MDL-110)'; Atlantic Department Stores, Inc. Litigation (MDL-1l3) '; General Adjustment Bureau Antitrust Litigation (MDL-l27)*.

23 Hendersonville, N.C. Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-13). " R efrigerant Gas Antitrust Litigation (MDL-76) . "Dayton, Ohio Air Disaster Litigation (38). "Ardmore, Oklahoma Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-ll). tI Fonr Seasons SecUl·ities Laws Litigation (MDL-55) . "Plumbing Fixture Li tigation (MD L-3); Concrete Pipe Antitrust Litigation (MDL-12); Penn Central

Secmities Litigation (MDL-56); CBS Licensing Antitrust Litigation (MDL-59); REA Express, Inc . Private Treble Damage Litigation (MDL-1l5); Professional Hockey Antitrust Litigation (MDL-1l9); Pellston, Michigan Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-I25).

"Suess Patent Infringement Litigation (MDL-74); Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation (MDL-109)' .

30 San Jnan, Puerto Rico Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-47). 31 New Orleans, Louisiana Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-64); 32 Las Vegas, Nevada Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-SO); Mandeville, Louisiana Air Disaster Litigation

(MDL-84); Camco Patent InIringement Litigation (MDfr-101) . 13 Westec Corporation Litigation (MDL-27). "Atlantic City, New J ersey Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-114) . 35 Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation (MDL-39); Huntington, West Virginia Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-

94) . 36 Career Academy Anti trust Li tigation (MD L-98).

'Denotes allegation of a class action under Rnle 23, "Federal Rules of Civil Procedme."

NOTE.-MDL refers to Multidistrict Litigation Panel number which is common to all civil cases transferred by the Judicial Panelnnder provisions of 28 U.S .C . H07.

•

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1974

266

TRANSFER OF CASES U NDER 28 U.S.C. § 1407

puring the fiscal year, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 354 civil actions which were originally filed in 56 districts to 20 districts. In 1973, 224 civil cases were transferred from 46 district courts to' 20 courts for the purpose of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In 1972, 231 cases filed in 45 districts were transferred by the Panel to 23 different district courts.

The district judges to whom cases have been assigned by the Panel have the responsibility of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in those cases. Unless a case is closed in the transferee court or ordered transferred by the transferee judge to the transferee or other district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, each of the transferred actions will, at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, be remanded by the Panel for trial to the district where the action was originally filed.

Since the enactment O'f the Multidistrict Litigation Act, a.pproved April 29, 1968 (Public Law 90- 296) , which established the Panel, there have been 1,984 transfers of civil cases to' which were joined 1,454 civil actions originally filed in the districts receiving the transfers (referred to as transferee districts). Thus, 3,438 cases have been a part of Section 1407 pretrial proceedings in the district courts by June 30, 1974. To date 1,954 have either been remanded by the Panel or terminated by the transferee courts.

,The first two of the accompanying tables provides. statistics on the districts transferring and receiving cases by order of the Panel during 1974. The third table distributes the 1,984 transfers by district and further supplies the names of the multidistrict litigations together with identification of [email protected] contain allegations eff a class action under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .

TABLE 66.-Number and types of cases transferred d1lring fiscal year 1974 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Transferee district Types of cases transferred

Arizona .. __ .. ................ .. . COOlidge, Arizona, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-l44) .. _ .. California, Northern ______ .... .. 7-Eleven Franchise Antitrust Litigation (NDL-97); 1

Juneau, Alaska Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-107); Holiday Magic Securities &< Antitrust Litigation (MDL-

1

124); 1 Great Western Ranches Litigation (MDL-143); I

Sta-Power Industri es, Inc. Securities &< Antitrust Litigation (MDL-151); 1 and IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation (MDL-l63).

Number t ransferred

42

DER 28 U.S.C. § 1407

11 Panel on Multidistrict Litigalhich were originally filed in 56 ~24 civil cases were transferred l for the purpose of coordinated ;s. In 1972, 231 cases filed in 45 Panel to 23 different district

LSes have been assigned by the nducting coordinated or consoli: cases. Unless a case is closed in nsf erred by the transferee judge mder 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 ed actions will, at the conclusion led by the Panel for trial to the nally filed. ultidistrict Litigation Act, apaw 90- 296), which established transfers of civil cases to which nally filed in the districts receivransferee districts). Thus, 3,438 1407 pretrial proceedings in the To date 1,954 have either been ted by the transferee courts. ring tables provides statistics on tving cases by order of the Panel ibutes the 1,984 transfers by dises of the multidistrict litigations se which contain allegations of a l Rules of Civil Procedure.

msferred during fiscal year 1974 by order Multidistrict Litigation

les of cases transferred

lir Disaster Litigation (MDL-144) •.•.. e Antitrust Litigation (NDL-97);' Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-I07); :curities & Antitrust Litigation (MDL,tern Ranches Litigation (MDL-143); , tries, Inc. Securities & Antitrust Lltl· ,); , and IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Ion (MDL-11l3).

Number trans· ferred

267

TABLE 66. - Number and types of cases transferred during fiscal year 1974 by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation- Continued

Transferee district

Calilornia, CentraL . . . . .. . .... . .

California, Southern ... ....... . . . Connerticut ... ... ... ..... ..... . .

District of Columbia . ... .. . . ... .

Florida, Southern •. . ............

Illinois, Northern ... . ......... . .

Kansas . . ... .... .. __ ... .. .. __ ... .

Louisiana, Eastern .. . ..... _ .... . Massachusetts ..•...... .. _ ...... .

Missouri, Western . . ......... _ . .. .

New York, Eastern ........... ' .. New York, Southern ..... .. __ .. .

Oklahoma, Northern . .... .. __ . . .

Oklahoma, Western .. ....•. _ ....

Pennsylvania, Eastcrn •.. _ ..... .

Pcnnsylvania, Western .. _ . ... .. •

Washington, Western . .. ..... ... .

Wisconsin, Eastern . .. .. ..... ... _

Types of cases transferred

Hotel Telephone Charge Antitrust Litigation (MDL-S9): 1 Duarte, California, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-I06); Public Air Travel Taritr Litigation (MDL-121); 'Equity Funding Corporation of America Litigation (MD L-142); , and Paris , France, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-172).

U.S . Financial Securities Litigation (MDL-1M) 1_ .... ..•• • Tweed·New Haven Airport Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-9~).

Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation (MDL-50);' and Mutual Fund Sales Antitrust Litigation (MDL-135).l

Florida Everglades Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-139), and Bestline Products Securities & Antitrust Litigation (MDL-162)_'

Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust Litigation (MDL-65);' and AMF Computerized Cash Register Con· t racts Litigation (MDL-130).

Clinton Oil Company Securities Litigation (MDL-137); , and Natural Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation (MDL-149) ' .

Plywood Anti trust Litigation (MDL-159) ..•..•...... . . . . . Evergreen Valley Project Litigation (MDL-122); 1 and

Boston, Massachusetts, Air Disaster Litigation (MDLl~O).

Grain Shipment Litigation (No. II) (MDL-22A);' Inter· national House of Pancakes Franchise Litigation (MDL-77); 1 and Midwest Milk Monopolization Lltiga· tion (MDL-83).1

Staines, England, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-147) .• . .. Seeburg-Commonwealth United Litigation (MDL-37); 1

Madison Fund, Inc. Securities Litigation (MD L-S7); Atlantic D epartment Stores, Inc. Litigation (MD L-113); , Stirling Homex Corporation Securities Litigation (MDL-126);' General Adjustment Burea\l Antitrust Litigation (MD L-127); , and Banking Agreements with Stirling Homex Corporation (MDL-133).

Home·Stake Production Companies Securities Litigation (MD L-153).1

Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation (MDL-55); 1 and Wheat Farmers Antitrust Class Action Litigation (MDL-129) ,' ~.

Penn Central Securities Litigation (MDL-56);' Profes· sional Hockey Antitrust Litigation (MDL-1l9); and Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RR Co. Securities & Antitrust Litigation (MDL-134).

Suess Patent Infringement Litigation (MDL-74); and Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation (MDL-109) .'

Boise Cascade Securities Litigation (MDL-128); 1 and West Coast Bakery Flour Antitrust Litigation (MDL-146).

Clark Oil & Refining Corporation Antitrust Litigation (MDL-140).l

T otsl .•••• .....•......... . ........•.••...•.........•

I Denotes allegation of a class action under Rule 23, "Federal Rules of Civil P rocedure."

Number trans· ferred

•

74

S

44

21

7

14

33

14

4 27

3

9

13

31

2

354

268

T ABLE 67.-Civil caSES transferred from one district to anothe)' during fiscal year ended June 30,1974, by order of the hLdicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation


Received

Total _______ ___ ___ _________ _ 354

District of Columbia ______________ _ _ 44

First CircuiL ___ __ __________ _ 33

Massachusetts _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 33 New Hampshire __ __ __ ______ ____ _______________ _ Puer to Rico _____ ________________ __ ______ ___ __ _

Second Circuit __ ______ _____ _ _

Connecticut ________ __ ________ - ___ _

New York : Southern ____ _______ __________ _ Eastern ______ __ _____ _______ __ _

32

1

27 4

Western ___ __ __________ ____ ____ ____ _ - _____ _ vermont _________ __ __ ____ _______ ________ _____ _

Third Circuit ___ ______ ______ _ 44

Delaware ___________ ___ _____ - _ - _____________ __ _

N ew Jersey ___ . _____ __ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Pennsylvania:

Eastern ________ ____ ____ _______ 13 Middle ____ ___ ___ ______ ___ __ ______ ____ - __ _ _ Western_ __ __ __ __ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ 31

Fourth Circuit _______ __________ _____ __ __ _

:Maryland ___ .. __________ ____ - _____ _ __ ~.,, _______ _ South Caroiina _____ ___ ____ __ ____ ___ ___ ________ _ Virginia, Eastern _______ __ __ _____ ___ ____ ______ _ _ West Virginia, Southern ___ ____ __ __ _____ _______ _ _

Fifth Circuit ________ _____ ___ _ 24

Alabama: N orthern ___ ______ _____ _________ _____ _____ _ Southern _____ ___ ___ ____ _____ _______ ______ _

Florida: Middle ___ ______________ _____ ____ _________ _ Southern _____ ______ ____ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ 21

Georgia: N orthern ___________________ ______ ___ _____ _ Southern_. _______________________________ _

Transferred

354

3

20

7 10

3

154

2

119 13

1 19

20

1 5

11 1 2

10

6 1 2 1

41

2 7

4 5

3 1


---- - ----- -

41

13

26 - 10

- 3

-122

- 1

- 92 - 9 - 1

- 19

24

- 1 -5

2 -1 29

- 10

- 6 -1 - 2 -1

-17

- 2 -7

- 4 16

-3 -1

TA Ju

L. T

j\

(

!istrict to another' during .fiscal year ended .l Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Number of cases


354

44

33

33

32

1

27 4

44

13

31

24

1------------\

- - - - - - - - - - --

---- - - - - - - --21

354

3

20

7 10

3

154

2

119 13

1 19

20

1 5

11 1 2

10

6 1 2 1

41

2 7

4 5

3 1


41

13

26 - 10

- 3

-122

- 1

- 92 - 9 - 1

- 19

24

- 1 -5

2 - 1 29

- 10

-6 - 1 -2 -1

-17

- 2 -7

-4 16

-3 -1

269

T ABL E 67.- Civil cases transferred from one district to another durimg fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, by order of the Judicial Panel on M ultidistrict L itigation-Continued

Number of cases Circuit and district Increase or

decrease Received Transferred

Louisiana, Eastern_ _ _______________ 3 2 1 Texas:

N orthern ___ ___________________ ___________ _ 12 -12 Southern _____________________ _ ________ ___ _ 4 - 4 Western __________________________________ _ 1 - 1

Sixth Cireui L ___ __ _______ __ __ ________ __ _ 18 - 18

Kentucky: Eastern ____________ _______ _______________ _ 1 - 1 Western ________________ __ ____________ ____ _ 1 - 1

Michigan, Eastern _____________________________ _ 5 - 5 Ohio:

Northern _________________________________ _ 3 - 3 Southern _______ __________________________ _ 4 - 4

Tennessee: Middle ________ ___________________________ _ 1 - 1 Western __ ______ ___ __ _____ ____ ____________ _ 3 - 3

Seventh CircuiL ____________ _ 8 16 - 8

Illinois, Nor-them _________________ _ 7 12 - 5 Wisconsin:

Eastern ______________________ _ 1 3 - 2 Western _____ ____ ______ ___ ________________ _ 1 - 1

Eighth Circuit ____ __________ _ 14 13 1

Arkansas, Eastern _____________________________ _ 1 - 1 Minnesota ______________________________ ______ _ 3 - 3 Missouri: •

Eastern ___________ _______________________ _ 3 - 3 Western____________________ ___ 14 6 8

Ninth Circuit ___ ____________ _ 129 52 77

Arizona_____________ ______________ 3 2 1 California:

Northern_ __________________ __ _ 42 6 36 Eastern ______ ____ __________ ______________ _ 2 - 2 CentraL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 74 10 64 Southern___ __ _____ ____________ 8 2 6

1 - 1 1 -1 3 - 3 8 - 6

17 -17

Idaho __ _

t~~~~:~a~== = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

~::~~~~~o~~ ~ ~ ~~t~~~== = = = = = = = = = = = == ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 562 -577 0 - 75 _ 19

270

TABLE 57. -Civil cases transferred from one district to another during fiscal year ending June 30,1974, by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation- Continued



Tenth CircuiL __ ____________ _ 26

Colorado _____________ __ _____ ____ _____________ _

lCansas___________________________ 14

Oklahoma: Northern___ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ 3 VVestern___________ ___ _________ 9

Utah __ __ __ _________ _________ ___ _____________ _

7

4

1 1 1


19

-4 14

2 8

- 1

TABLE 58.-Summary by district of civil cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407, for the period July 7, 1968-June 30,1974

Actions transferred ... ~ (total to date)

District Type of

case received

TotaL ___________________________ _

Alabama:

Into district

1,984

Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 33 Middle _________________ _____________________ _ southern __________ __ ________________________ _

Alaska _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ __ _

Arizona_ _______ ___ ___________ _ 2 3

Arkansas: Eastern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ VVestern ___ __ __ ______________________________ _

California: N orthem __ ____ __ _____ - __ _ 3 165 Eastern _______ _____ ____________ ___ ___________ _ CentraL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 145 Southern_ ________________ 5 8

Colorado _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 9 Connecticut_____ ____ __________ 7 17 Delaware _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8 2

District of Columbia___________ 9 74 Florida :

N orthem _______________ ___ ___ _______________ _

Middle_________ __________ 10 1 Southern__ _______ ___ _____ 11 45

Georgia: Northern _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _____ _ Sou them _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _

See footnotes at end of ta ble.

Out of district

1, 984

12 3

10 33 20

5 1

178 6

74 13 13

9 7

36

3 7

22

10 2

Net galn/loss

----------

21 -3

- 10 -33 -17

-5 -1

-13 -5 71

-5 -4

8 -5

-38

-3 -5 23

-10 -2

1

trict to another during fiscal year ending n Multidistrict Litigation-Continued

Number of cases Increase or --- decrease

celved Transferred

26 7 19 -

------- 4 - 4 14 - -------- -- - 14

3 1 2 9 1 8

- --- - -- - 1 -1

: transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407, for :-June 30, 1974

~

Actions transferred ,-" 1

Into district

-

- 1,984

33 - ------ - - - -

- - -- -- -----

- - --- - -- ---

3

4 5 6 7 8 9

3

- ----------

- -- - - --- ---

165 - ----- ---- -

145 8 9

17 2

74

- - --- ---- --o 1

1 45

- --- - -- --- -

- ----------

(total to date)

Out of Net district galn/loss

-

1,984 ------- - --

12 21 3 -3

10 -10 33 -33 20 -17

5 -5 1 -1

178 -13 6 -6

74 71 13 -5 13 -4 9 8 7 -5

36 -38

3 -3 7 -6

22 23

10 -10 2 -2

27.1

T ABLE 68 .-S1!mmary by district of civil cases transferred under 28 U .S .C. 1407, f or the period J uly 7, 1968-June 30, 1974- Continued

Actions t ransferred (total to date)

District cas~i~~eP!ed 1- -----;-------.------Into

district

H a waiL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Idaho __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Illinois :

Northern_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ 12 206 Southern ______ - - _ - - - - - - - - __ - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - - --

Indiana: Northern __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Southern_________________ 13 81

I owa : Northern __ ________ - - - __ - - ________ ______ __ ___ _

Southern ____ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - --Kansas--- --- - ------- - - ---- --- 14 70 Kentucky :

E astern- ----- ---- - -- -- ---- 15 54 West ern _____ __ _ - ___ - - --- - ___ -_ - _ - __ - - _ - _ - - - __

Louisiana : Eastern__ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ 16 Co)

West ern _____ - -- --- - - - - - -- - - _ - _ - - - _ - _ - ___ - _ - __

Maine ___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- -- --- - - - -- - - - - - - - -Maryland--- . -- ____ ____ - __ __ _ _ 17 5 Massachusetts_ _____ ____ _______ 18 63 Michigan:

E astern_ ___ ____ ____ _______ 19 1 Western ________ - - -_ - - - - -- - -- - _ - - - _ - __ _ - ___ - __

Minnesota _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 11 Mississippi, Southern _____ ____ - - _ - - - _______________ _

Missouri: E astern _____ _______ ______ - ___________________ _ W est elll _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 21 42

Montana _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ ~~ __ ___ ____ _ Nebraska __ ______ ___ _____ ___ ________ ___ _ ___ ____ __ _ Nevada _______________________ __________________ _ New H ampshire _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 22 27 New Jersey__ ______________ __ 23 10 New York:

Northern _ _ ______ ___ ______ 24 2 Sout hern________ __ __ _____ 25 199 Eastern____ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ____ _ _ 26 4 West ern

N orth Caroli~~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

East ern

Ohio ~~~~~;i = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ Northern ____ _ Southern ------------

See footnotes-a-t -e~d -of -t~~;e~ -----28 29

4 6

Out of district

1 3

217 1

6 5

1 6

20

12 4

11 3 2

33 41

29 3

98 2

21 23

2 14 5

11 23

4 411

43 5

6 5 1

20 85

Net gain/loss

-1 -3

- 11 - 1

- 6 76

-1 -6 50

42 - 4

-8 - 3 -2

-28 22

-28 - 3

-27 -2

-21 19

-6- 2 - 14 - 5 16

-13

- 2 - 212 -39 - 5

-6 - 5

1

-16 - 79

272

TABLE 68.- Summary by district of civil cases transferred under 2B U.S.C. 1407, for the period July 7, 196B-June 80, 1974- Continued

Actions t ransferred (total to date)

District

Oklahoma: Northern __ . __ ___ __ - ___ - --East('rn ___ _____ - -- - - - - - - --vV~~tern ______ _________ __ _

T ype of case received

30 31 32

Into district

3 7

32 Oregon _____ __ - - -- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - --Pennsylvania:

Eastern__ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ 33 494 Middle_______ ______ ___ ___ 34 _________ _ vVestern_ ______ ____ __ __ ___ 35 55

Puer to R ico__ __ ____________ ___ 35 19 R hode Island ____ __ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -South Carolina ___ _ . ------- - - -- - -- -- -- --- - - - ---- - - -Sou th Dalcota ____ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tennessee:

Eas tern _______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Middle __ __ __ - _ - - - - - -- - -- - --- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -vVestern_ _______ ___ ___ ____ 36 6

Texas : Eastern ______ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Northern _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ ____ _ 37 Southern__ __ ______ ___ ____ 38

o 12

4

Western _______ - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -U tah ____ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -V ermon t ________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Virginia:

Eastern ______ __ - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -W es tern _______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Washington, Wcstern__________ 39 8 West Virginia:

Northern ___ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :'~ - - - - - - - - - - - -Southern_____________ __ __ _ 40 47

Wisconsin: Eastern___ ________ ___ _____ 41 5 Western _____ ___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I Cast Iron Pipe Antitrust Litigation (MDL-81).'

Out of district

4 - - --- - -- --

9 18

77 22 24

8 1 8 3

4 4 8

1 39 22

4 14 36

21 2

46

1 3

17 7

Net gain/loss

-1 7

23 -18

417 -22

31 11

-1 -8 -3

- 4 -4 -2

-1 - 27 -18

- 4 -14 -36

-21 - 2

- 38

-1 44

-12 - 7

I Coolidge, Arizona, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-l44). 3 Gypsum Wallboard Ant itrust Lit igation (MDL-14),· Hong Kong Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-15),

Koratron Patent Li tigation (MD L-20); Water Meter Antitrust Litigation (MD L-23);' Western Liquid Asphalt Litigaticn (MD L- 24) ;' 7-Eleven Franchise Antitrust Litigation (MD L-97);' Juneau, Aiaska, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-I07) ; Holiday Magic Securities & Antitrust Litigation (MDL-124);' GreatWestem Ranches Li tigation (MDL-143);' Sta-Power Industrie" Inc. Securities and Antitrust Litigation (MDL-151);' IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation (MDL- 163).

, "Westol thc Rockics" Concrete Pipe Antitrust Litigation (MDL-25); ' AirPollu tion Antitrust Lit igation (MDL-31);' Santa Monica Bay Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-34) ; Embro Patent Infringement LitigatIOn (MDL-57); San Antonio, Venezucla, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-72); Hotei T elephone Charge Antitrm:t Litigation (MDL-89);' Toronto International Airport Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-I03); Duarte, Cali-

ransferred under §B U.S.C. 1407, fo r 0, 1974-Continued

--

-

-


Into district

3 7

32 - - ----- - - -

494 - ----- - - - -

55 19

-- - --- - - - -- ---- - ----- - - ---- - - -

- -- --- - - - ----- - -----

6

0 12 4

--- - ------- ------- - -- ----- - - - -

- - ----- - - ----- - -----

8

----------47

5 ------- - --

Out of district

4 -- -- - --- --

9 18

77 22 24 8 1 8 3

4 4 8

1 39 22

4 14 36

21 2

46

1 3

17 7

Net gain/loss

-1 7

23 -18

417 - 22

31 11

-1 - 8 -3

- 4 - 4 -2

- 1 - 27 - 18 -4

-14 - 36

- 21 - 2

-38

-1 44

-12 -7

'HOng Kong Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-15), ltitrust Litigation (MDL-23);" Western Llqwd rust Litigation (MDL-97);" Juneau, Alaska, Air l Antitrust Litigation (MDL-124);" GreatWestern [nco Securities and Antitrust Litigation (MDL-(MDL-163). .

on (MDL-25)'* AirPollution Antitrust Litigat~on lDL-34)' Embro Patent Infringement LitigatlOn

, n ust 111 (MDL-72); Hotel Telephone Charge An I r Ii-ir Disaster Litigation (MDL-103); Duarte, Ca

r

273

tornla, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-106) ; Public Air Travel Tariff Litigation (MDL-121);* Equity FundIng Corpuration of American Litigation (MDL-142);* Paris, France, Air Disaster Lit igation (MDL-l72).

'U.S. Financial Securities Litigation (MDL-161).* 'King Resources Company Securities Litigation (MDL-79);* Denver, Colorado, Air Disaster Litigation

(MDL-~8).

7 Master Kay Antitrust Litigation (MDL-45);* Tweed-New Haven Airport Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-9~) .

• Frost Patent Litigation (MDL-46).* 'Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation (MDL-50);* Alsco-Harvard Fraud Litigation (MDL-54); Nationa l

Student Marketing Litigation (MDL-lOS); Mutual Fund Sales Antitrust Lit igation (MDL-135).* 10 Cross-Florida Barge Canal Litigation (MDL-70). "Maracaibo, Venezuela, Air Disaster Lit igation (MDL-48); Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation

(MDL-82); Nlssan Motor Corporation Antitrust Litigation (MDL-120);* Florida Everglades Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-139); Bestline Products Securities & Antitrust Litigation (MDL-162).*

12 Children's Books Lit igation (MDL-2);* Admission Ticket Litigation (MDL-21) ; Butterfield Patent Infringement Litigation (MD L-29); Air Fare Litigation (MD L-S8); Government Auto F leet Sales Antitrust Litigation (MDL-65);* Co=odlties Exchange Commission Rate Antitrust Litigation (MDL-99); Convenient Food Mart Franchise Litigation (MDL-1OB);* AMF Computerized Cash R egister Contracts Litigation (MD L-130).

!l Fairland, Indiana, Air Disaster Lit igation (MDL-30); Aviation Products Liability Litigation (MDL-104).

"Grain Shipment Litigation (MDL-22); Silver Plume, Colorado, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-112); Clinton Oil Company Securities Litigation (MDL-137);* Natural Resources, I nc. Securities Litigation (MDL-149).*

"Constance, Kentucky, Air Disasters Lltlgations (MD L-8A & 8B). 11 Plywood Antitrust Litigation (MDL-159).* 17 Kaehnl Patent Litigation (MDL-36). 18 Revenue Properties Company Securities Litigation (MDL-32);* CBS Color Tube Patent Litigation

(MDL-69); Kauffman Mutual Fund Litigation (MDL-78); Evergreen Valley Project Litigation (MDL-122); Vialron Computer Systems Corp. Securities Li tigation (MDL-138);* Boston, Massachusetts Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-160).

"Willingham Patent Litigation (MDL-60). "Antibiotic Drug Litigation (Non-settling Cases) (MDL-IO); * IBM Antitrust Litigation (MDL-18). " Grain Shipment Litigation (No. II) (MDL-22A);' International House of Pancakes Franchise Litiga-

tion (MDL-77); Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation (MDL-83);* Transit Company Tire Antitrust Litigation (MDL-lll);* Cessna Aircraft Distributorship Antitrust Litigation (MDL-123).

"Hanover, New Hampshire, Air Disaster Litigation (MD L-43); Burlington, Vermont, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-132).

"Fourth Class Postage Reguiation Litigation (MDL-16). "Litigation Involving Welch & Morgan (MDL-71). "Protection Device Antitrust Litigation (MDL-9); Antibiotic Drug Litigation (Settling Cases) (MDL-

10) ; Seeburg-Commonwealth United Li tigation (MDL-37); Penn Central Commercial.Paper Litigation (MDL-56A) ; Carrom Trademark Li tigation (MD L-61); Brown Company Securities Litigation (MD L-1l7); Value Line Special Situation Fund Litigation (MD L-7S); Madis~n Fund, Inc. Securities Litigation (MDL-87); T~xas Gulf Sulphur SecUlities Litigation (MDL-100);* Caesars Palace Securities Litigation (MDL-110);* Atlantic Department Stores, Inc. Lit igation (MDL-1l3);* Stirli ng Homex Corporation Securities Litigation (MDL-126);' General Adjustment Bureau Antitrust Li tigation (MDL-127) ;* Banking Agreements with Stirling Homex Corporation (MD L-133). •

"Staines, England, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-147). "Hendersonville, N.C., Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-13). " Refrigerant Gas Anti trust Li tigation (MDL-76) . "Dayton, Ohio, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-38). "Home Stake Production Companies Securities Litigation (MDL-lS3) .* 11 Ardmore, Oklahoma Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-ll). " Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation (MD L-S5); Wheat Farmers Antitrust Class Action Litigation

(MDL-129).* "Plumbing Fixtuces Litigation (MDL-3); Concrete Pipe Antitrust Litigation (MDL-12); Penn Central

Securities Litigation (MDL-56); CBS Licensing Antitrust Litigation (MD L-59); REA Express, Inc. Private Treble Damage Li tigation (MD L-llS); Pr J[essional Hockey An ti trust Li tigation (MD L-119); Pellston , Michigan, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-12S); Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RR Co. Securities & Antitrust Litigation. (MDL-134).

II Sucss Patent Infringement Litigation (MDL-74); Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation (MD L-109) .* "San Juan, Puerto Rico, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-47). II New Orleans, LOUisiana, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-64). (;7 Las Vegas, Nevada, Air Disaster Li tigation (MDL-80); Mandeville, Louisiana, Air Disaster Litigation 1DL-84); Cameo Patent Infringement Litigation (MDL-I01) . :: Westee Corporation Litigation (MDL-27).

(M;tlantl~ City, New Jersey, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-1l4); Boise Cascade Securities Litigation L-128), 'West Coast Bakery Flour Antitrust Litigation (MDL-146).

(Continued)

274

(Continued) .. Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation (MDL-39); Huntington, West Virginia, rur DisasterLitigation (MDL-

94). 1\ Career Academy Antitrust, Litigation (MDL-98); Clark all & Refining Corporation Antitrust Litiga

tion (MDL-140) . "Denotes allegation of a class action under rule 23, "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

NOTE.-MDL refers to Multldlstrict Litigation Panel number which is common to all civil cases trans· fered by the Judici al Panel under provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1407.

CRIMINAL CASES

The volume of criminal cases filed in the U.S. district courts continued to decline from fiscal year 1972. The 37,667 original cases filed during fiscal year 1974 marked a 6.7% drop from 1973 and was nearly 20 % below the 1972 level.

Five major offense groups showed marked declines in filings, with Selective Service Act prosecutions dropping off by the greatest proportion; from 3,043 in 1973 to 1,008 in 1974, down 66.9 % . The phase out of the military draft calls by the close of 1973 accounts for the substantial decline in Selective Services Act cases docketed in the district courts. The 1,008 Selective Service Act filings represents the lowest level for this offense since fiscal year 1966, before the escalation in Viet Nam, when only 663 cases were filed.

Filings for liquor law violations declined 28.9 %. This continued trend is the result of the handling of these violations by the U.S. magistrate or state authorities.

Narcotics filings dropped 16.4% in a distinct departure from the steady upward trend for this offense category. There were 7,374 new cases filed in 1974, the third full year of enforcement of the provisions of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Drug filings in fiscal year 1973 reached 8,817 cases.

An executive organization plan to bring together all federal efforts for the prosecution of drug distributors and traffickers was implemented on JUly 1, 1973 when the President signed Executive Order 11,727 (approved July 6, 1973). The reorganization plan removed to the new Drug Enforcement Agency all drug related investigative and intelligence collection functions of the Bureau of Customs; provided for the absorption into the new agency of the personnel and expertise of the Justice Department's Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD); and placed the functions of the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) and Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (DALE) in the new agency. Also, the Attorney General created a new legal division headed by an Assistant Attorney General to serve as the focal point for the prosecution of drug law violators.

.'

UJ CIl 2 u: u. u. C u C u ~ ~ <

(j) <lJ • UJ ...J al <! t-

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1975

oo-'¢C"'ll:-("f') ...... ~ cioCfioct"i~~ ~ . , - -~~~Q\~~~ ~

1.1"'1- c- C"'l

OON -- '¢O\- ....: o"':<ioc,o"':<i ~

, oo",'<!"II"lOO\O ~ j ~a\C'ici~o~ ('I")

Fiscal year

1 973 __ _____ -__________________________ _ 1 974 ____ __ ____ __ ______________________ _ 1 975 __________________________________ _

245

Filed

17,218 18,410 19,307

Prisoner petitions

(355 ) (337) (367)

Figures in parentheses are included class action petitions.

Transfer of Cases Under 28 U.S.c. 1407

Pending

7,912 (322) 9,151 (466)

10,469 (564)

During the fiscal year, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 255 civil actions which were originally filed in 50 different district courts to 28 transferee district courts. In 1974, 354 civil cases were transferred from 56 district courts to 20 transferee districts for the purpose of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In 1973 , 224 actions filed in 46 different district courts were transferred by the Panel to 20 transferee district courts.

The district judges to whom actions have been assigned by the Panel have the responsibility of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in those actions. Unless an action is closed in the transferee court or ordered transfered by the transferee judge to the transferee or other district under 28 U.S.c. 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. 1406, each of the transferred actions will, at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings , be remanded by the Panel for trial to the district where the action was originally filed.

Since the enactment of the Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April 29, 1968 (Public Law 90-296), which established the Panel, there have been 2,239 transfers of civil actions to which were joined 1,678 civil actions originally filed in the districts receiving the transfers. Thus, 3,917 cases have been a part of Section 1407 pretrial proceedings in the 48 different transferee district courts from 1968 through June 30, 1975. To date , 2,526 have either been remanded by~the Panel or terminated by thetransferee courts.

The following tables provide statistics on the number of cases transferred since the Panel was enacted, and the flow of cases into and out of individual districts for both fiscal year 1975 and cumulatively for the entire period since 1968. The list accompanying Table 44 identifies those cases transferred in 1975.

ariana estariel

Rectangle

246

TABLE 43.- Summary of MuItidistrict Litigation Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407

As of During As of 7/1/74 FY 1975 6/30/75

Cases transfe rred _________________________________________ 1,984 255 2,239 Cases originally fi led

in transferee districts ___ __________ ._. _______ . _____ ... _ 1,454 224 1,678

TOTAL CASES SUBJECTED TO SECTION 1407 PROCEEDINGS. ___________________________________ 3,438 479 3,9 17

Cases terminated by transferee courts or actions remanded by the pane l __ . . ________ . . _. ___ ..... __ ._._ ( 1,95 4) (572) (2,526 )*

TOTAL CASES PENDING AND SUBJECTED TO SECTION 1407 PROCEEDINGS _________ ... _ 1,484 1,391

* Includes a total of 111 cases which have been re~anded by the Panel and 21 cases reassigned to transferor judges with in the transferee d istrict.

TABLE 44.- Number and Types of Cases Transferred by Order of the Judicial Panel on MuItidistrict Litigation

Fiscal Year 1975 & Cumulative From 7/7/68 to Date

C ircuit and

district

Dis trict of Columbia ______________________ __ _ _

Maine ____ ___________________________ _____________ _ Massachusetts ___________________________ __ ___ _ _ New Hampshire _________ _______________ __ _____ _ Rhode Is land ______________ ___________ __________ _ Puerto Rico ________ ______ ________ ___ _ . __________ _

Second C irc uit ___ _______ _____________ _

Connectic ut ___________ _____ __ __________________ _

New York: Northern ________ . ___________________ _____ _____ _ Eastern ________ . __ . ___________________________ __ _ Southe rn __ ____ ___ ____________________________ _ Western ___________________ _________________ __ _

V ermon t _____ _______________ _____________ __ _____ _

Third C ircuit ____ _____ __ _______________ _

Delaware ______________________________________ __ _ New Jersey ____________ ____________ _____________ _

Pennsylvania: Eastern ___ ______ _________________ _______ ___ __ _ Middle .......... ...••. . ..........•........ . . . . . Western _____________ . _____________________ ____ _

Fiscal year 1975 C umulative 1968-1975

Index to Actions t ra nsferred Actions tra nsferred cases

Into O ut of Net Into Out of Net district district change dist rict district change

255 255 0 2.239 2,239 0

76 37 39 ~----+_----4-----~----_+----~~----+_-----

13 6 122 70 52

0 2 -2 2 13 4 9 76 45 31

I -I 27 12 15 -2 3 -3

0 19 8 II

34 -3 253 542 - 289 3 1 ~---+----4_--~~--~----+_----~---

0 18 10

0 2 4 -2 4 5 3 ~2 9 46 - 37

25 30 -5 224 44 1 -217 0 5 -5 0 36 -36

.70 - 16 565 174 391

2 -2 2 9 -7 8 -8 10 31 -2 1

5 -3 496 83 413 4 - 4 26 -26 I I 57 25 2

TABLE,

Faunl

Maryland •. __ North Caroli

Eastern __ . Middle ... . Western ._

South Caroli V irginia:

Eastern __ . Western _.

West Vi rgini Northern _ Southern _

Fifth

A labama: Northern. Middle ._. Southern .

Florida: Northern . Middle __ _ Southern .

Georgia: Northern . Midd le .... Southern .

Louisiana: Eastern __ Middle .... Western _

Mississippi: Northern . Southern

Texas: Northern . Eastern __ Southern . Western _

Sixth

Kentucky: Eastern __ Western _

Michigan: Eastern __ Western _

Ohio: Northern Southern

Tennessee: Eastern __ Middle . . . Western _

Seve

Illinois: Northern Eastern __ Southern

Ind iana: Northern Southern

W isconsin: Eastern __ Western

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407

of (74

1,984

1,454

3,438

1,954)

1,484

During FY 1975

255

224

479

(572)

As of 6/30{75

2,239

1,678

3,917

(2,526)*

1,391

landed by the Panel and 21 cases district.

by Order of the Judicial Panel on I I 7 {7{68 to Date

975 Cumulative 1968-1975

!rred Act ions transferred

Ne t Into O ut of Net change district district change

0 2.239 2.239 0

76 37 39

6 122 70 52

0 2 -2 9 76 45 31

- I 27 12 15 -2 3 -3

0 19 8 II

- 3 253 542 - 289

0 18 10

0 4 -2 2 46 -37

-5 224 441 -217 0 5 -5 0 36 - 36

-16 565 174 39 1

-2 2 9 -7 - 8 10 31 -21

-3 . 496 83 413 -4 26 -26

I 57 25 2

247

T ABLE 44.- Number and Types of Cases Transferred by Order of the Judicia l Panel on MuItidistrict Litigation

Fiscal Year 1975 & Cumulative From 7/7/68 to Date (Continued)

Ci rcuit and

district

Fourth Circuit . _______ ________________ _

Maryland ______ _____ ___________________ __ ___ _____ _

North Caro lina: Eastern • ______________________________________ _ Middle ___________________ . __________________ .. _ Weste rn ______________________________________ _

South Caro lina _____ __________________________ _

Vi rginia: Eastern _______ _________________ . _______________ ._ Weste rn __ _________ ___________ _____ . ___________ _

West Virginia: Northern ___________ __________________ ________ _ Southern __ _______ __ ___ __ _____________________ _

A labama: Northern _____________________________________ _ Middle __ ____ . ___ __ __ ___________ ___ __ . . ________ _ Southe rn ______________ _______________________ _

Flo rida: Northern ___________________________________ _ Middle ___ __ ______________ .. __ __________ _______ _ Southern ________________ ___ ___ _______________ _

Georgia: Northern _______________________________ __ ___ _ Midd le ________________________________________ _ Southern ______________ ___ ___ ___ ______________ _

Louisiana: Eastern ____________________________________ __ . __ Middle _________________ _______ ______________ __ _ Weste rn _________________ ______ ______________ _

Mississippi: Northern ______ _______________________________ _ Southern _______ ______ ______ ______ __ __________ _

Texas: Northern _____ ____ . ___________________________ _ Eastern _____________________________ __________ _ Southern ________________ _____ __ ____ __________ _ Western __ ___________ ________ ____ _______ ______ _

Sixth Circuit _______________________ ___ _

Kentucky: Eastern ____ ________________ ___ ____ . ____________ _ Western _____________ __ ___ ___________________ _

Michigan: Eastern _______________________________________ _ Western __ ____________________________________ _

O hio; Northe rn ______________ ______ _______________ __ _ Southe rn _____ ___________________ ____________ _

Tennessee: Eastern ________ . ________________________ _____ _ _ Middle ___________________ _______________ ___ ___ _ Weste rn __ ___ __ . _________________________ __ ____ _

Seventh CircuiL ______________________ _

Illinois: Northe rn ____ __ ____ __________ __________ ____ ___ _ Eastern ______________________________ ______ __ _ Southern _____________________________________ _

Indiana: Northe rn _________________ _____ __ . . _._ .. _ ... __ _ Southern _. __ ._. ___ .. _._. __ . ___ __ __ _____ ___ ... .

Wisconsin: Eastern ____ ___________ ... _ ... _ ... __________ ___ . Weste rn._ ._ ..... _ .. _____ ____ ___ ..... ___ ..... ___ _

Fiscal year 1975 Cumulative 1968-1975

Index to Actions transfe rred Actions t ra nsferred cas<s

Into O ut of Net In to Out of Net district district change district district change

20 15 74 95 -21

2 -2 35 -30

0 6 -6 0 5 -5

13 13 15 I 14 -9 17 - \7

4 3 25 -18 0 2 - 2

0 - I 0 47 44

23 3 1 - 8 121 18 1 -60

- I 33 13 +20 0 0 3 - 3 0 10 -10

0 0 3 -3 - I I 8 - 7

10 12 7 57 27 30

-2 12 - 12 0 0 2 -2

II 2 5 10 12 -2 0 0 - 3

0 0 0 ·-2

9 -9 12 48 - 36 12 I 0 I 2 - I

10 -10 4 32 - 28 13 3 3 4 -I

II 82 178 -96

0 54 12 42 -I 5 -5

14 5 31 -23 0 3 - 3

15 0 21 - f 6 -I 86 - 80

16 2 2 4 -2 17 I 2 -I 6 -5

2 -2 10 - 4

27 -22 297 280 17

18 26 -21 21 1 243 - 32 0 0 0 - I

- I -7 0 81 76

0 17 - 12 0 7 -7

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

I

248

TABLE 44.- Number and Types of Cases Transferred by Order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Fiscal Year 1975 & Cumulative From 7/7/68 to Date (Concluded)

Fiscal year 1975 Cumulative 1968-1975

Index to Actions transferred Actions transferred ca~s r-------r-------r-------t-------r-------r-------

Circuit and

district Into d istrict

Out of district

Net change

Into Outo( Net district district change

69 122 -53 Eighth Circuit ........... - ............ r-------t-_____ 1_6t-_____ 1 0+ _______ 6t-______ t-______ t-____ __

Arkansas: Eastern ________ ._. _______ . _____________________ _ Western ______ . _______________________________ _

Iowa: Northern _______ ____ . ______ . ________________ . __ . Southern _______________________ . __________ ___ _ 19

Minnesota __________ _________ . __ . ___ ." ... __ . ____ _ 20 Missouri:

Eastern _______________________________________ _ Western ____________________________ . __________ _

21 N e braska _____________ ._"- ___ ______________________ _ North Dakota __________________________________ _ South Dakota __ . _____________________ . ____ __ __ ___ _

Alaska ___________________________________________ _ Ar izona ____ ___ ____________________________ . _______ _

Cali fornia: Northern _______ . _____ . _________________ ________ _ 22 Eastern ________________________ . __ . _____________ _ Central _________________________ . _______ ______ _ 23 Southern _________ . __________________________ _ 24 Hawaii ________________________________________ __ _

Ida ho •.•.....•..........•••.......• _ ....•.••.•.... 25 Montana ______ ___ _______________________________ _ Nevada ___________________ _______ . __________ __ __ __ _ Oregon _______ __ _________ _________ __ __ _____ ______ _

Washington: Eastern _______________________________ _ . _______ _ Western __________________ _______ ______ _______ _ 26

Tenth Circuit __ ___________ ____________ _

Colorado ____ _________________________________ ___ _ 27 Kansas ______ ___ _____________ _______________ __ ____ _ New Mex:ico ___________________________________ _

Oklahoma: Northern ___________ ____ ___________ ___________ _ Eastern ____________________________ . __ . ________ _ Western _____________________ ____________ _____ _ 28

Utah .•.•.......•.....................•.. ...••.•.... Wyoming ____________________________ . ____________ _

Index To Cases - Fiscal Year 1975

IGriseofulvin Antitrust Litigation (MOL-20S).

3 4

126

23

95 3

2

4

4

I 4

66

41

9 2 I

35

I 28

- I o

o 3 o

- I 5 o o o

60

-I -I

-1 8 o

86 1

- I 2 o

- I - I

- 1 -5

- 31

- I -3 -I

o o 2

- 28 o

3 15

51

455

188

240 II

II

125

10 70

3 7

35

6 -6 I -I

I -I 6 -3

42 -27

22 -22 27 24 14 -14

0 -3

465 -10

34 -34 21 -18

219 -31 6 -6

83 157 15 -4 2 -2 3 -I 2 -2 6 -6

19 -19

I -I 54 -43

95 30

15 -5 23 +47

I -I

4 -I 0 7

10 25 42 -42

0

•

%80ston. Massachusetts . Air Disaster Litigation (MOL-160); Susquehanna Corporation Securities Litigation (MOL-197).

:Spetroleum Product Antitrust Litigation (MOL-ISO).$

4Staines, England. Air Disaster Litigation (MOL-147); Franklin National Bank Securities Litigation (MOL-196).

5Stirling Homex Corporation Securities Litigation (MOL-126)$; Scientific Control Corporation Securities Litigation (MOL-157)$; Molinaro/Catanzaro Patent Litigation (MOL-l70 ); Republic National - Realty Equities Securities Litigation (MDL-174)$; Ame rada Hess Corporation Antitrust Litigation (MOL- 192 ).$

AREA Express, Inc. Private Treble Damage Litigat ion (MOL-II5 ); Japanese Elect ronic Products Antitrust Litigation (MDL·189).

'Suess Patent Infringement Litigation (MDL-74); Glenn W. Turner Enterpri ses Litigation (M DL-I09).

"Charlotte. N.C .. Air Disaster Lit igation (MOL-202).

"Industrial Wine Contracts Securities Litigation (MOL-ISS); Eastern Air Lines. tnc. Flight Attendant Weight Program Litigation (MDL-195)$; Upperville. Virginia, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-1 99).

~rred by Order of the Judicial Panel on gation 7/7/68 to Date (Concluded)

year 1975 Cumulative 1968·1975

; transferred Actions transferred

)ut of Net Into Out of Net listrict change district district change

10 6 69 122 -53

I -I 6 -6 0 I -I

0 I -I 3 3 6 -3

4 0 15 42 -27

I -I 22 -22 4 5 51 27 24

0 14 -14 0 0 0 3 -3

66 60 455 465 - 10

I -I 34 -34 I -I 3 21 -1 8

41 -18 188 219 -31 0 6 -6

9 86 240 83 157 2 I II 15 - 4 I -I 2 -2

2 2 3 - I 0 2 -2

I -I 6 -6 I - I 19 -19

I -I I -I 8 -5 \I 54 -43

35 - 31 125 95 30

2 -I 10 15 - 5 3 -3 70 23 +47 I -I I -I

0 3 4 -I 0 7 0 7

I 2 35 10 25 28 -28 42 -42

0 0

quehanna Corporation Securities Litigation (MDL-

lational Bank Securities Litigation (MOL-196).

Scientific Control Corporation Securities Litigation epublic National - Realty Equities Securities Litiga(MOL-I 92)."

): Japanese Electronic Products Anti trust Litigation

:r Enterprises Lit igation (M OL-I 09).

!m Ai r Lines. Inc. Flight Attendant Weight Program 1 (M OL-199 ).

249

'ONissan Motor Corp. A ntitrust Litigation (MDL~120). *

"Plywood Antitrust Litigation (MOL- I 59).·

IlL. E. Lay & Co., Inc. Antitrust Litigation (MO L- 187) .•

13Ro2.dway Express Employment Practices Litigation (MOL-ISS)."

14Toilet Seat Antitrust Litigation (M DL-1 84).*

15The Triax Company Patent Litigation (MDL-182).

16Chattanooga, Tennessee. Air Disaster Litigation (MOL-200).

'1Warehouse Construction Contract Litigation (MOL-1 80).

IliGovernment Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust Litigation (MDL-65) *; Mt. McKinley National Park, Alaska. Auto Disaster Litigation (MOL-203).

IIIAlodex Corporation Securities Litigation (MDL~ 165).

:Z°Antibiotic Drug Litigation (Non.Sett li ng Cases) (MOL.IO). *

21Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation (MDL·S3)*; Transit Compa ny Tire Antitrust Litigation (MOL.II I ).*

22Holiday Magic Securities & Antitrust Litigation (MDL-124)*; IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrus t Litigation (MDL-163); Gas Vent Pipe Antitrust Litigation (MDL·171 )*; Air West. Inc. Securities Litigation (MOL- I 77)*; Sugar Antitrust Litigation (MDL-201 ). *

t.'Equity Funding Corporation of America Litigation (MDL-142)*; Paris, France. Air Disaster Litigation (MOL~172 ); Pago Pago, American Samoa. Air Disaster Litigation (MDL- I 76); Pennsylvania Life Company Securities Litigation (MOL-183)*; Papeete, Tahiti, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-206).

Z~U.S. Financial Secu rities Litigation (MDL·161). *

2$ Peruvian Road Litigation (MDL·167).

211West Coast Bakery Flour Antitrust Litigation (M DL-146); Mack Truck, Inc. Antitrust Litigation (MDL-1781.

27King Resources Company Securiti es Litigation (MDL· 79). *

:!AFour Seasons Securities Laws Litigation (MOL-55) ; Wheat Farmers Antitrust Class Action Litigation (MDL-129). *

* Denotes a llegation of a class actio n under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

•

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1976

11976 AN D PENDING JULY 1,1975 AND lERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

-

Filed Pe nd ing 1976 June 30 . 1976

264 440

1 0 23

23 49

6 7 1 0 4

1 8 4 1

68 121

1 9 28

10 7

1 5 25

34 4 2

262 489

159 26 2

9 1 7

9 15

10 49

2 9 26

26 60

20 60

196 331

4 1 8 2 4 9

4 5

5 18 45 9 2

45 44 23 44 14 1 5

6 7

9 15

489 836

5 12

26 6 5

206 296 24 50

81 20 0

26 33 23 37

11 10 3 6

14 25

24 35

20 24

26 4 3

- -

118 16 0

33 37 38 66 24 26

10 18 3 1 4 5 5 6 1 1

221

TRANSFERS OF CASES UNDER 28 U.S.G.1407

During the twelve months ended June 30, 1976, the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation transferred 491 civil actions which were originally filed in 69 different district courts to 24 transferee district courts. In 1975, 255 civil cases were transferred from 50 district courts to 28 transferee

districts for the purpose of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The district judges to whom actions have been assigned by the Panel

have the responsibility of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial

proceedings in those actions . Unless an action is closed in the transferee

court or ordered transferred by the transferee judge to the transferor or

other district under 28 U.s.C. 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. 1406, each of the trans

ferred actions will , at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, be remanded by the Panel for trial to the district where the action was originally filed.

. Since the enactment of the Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April

29 , 1968 (Public Law 90-296), which established the Panel, there have been

2,730 transfers of civil actions to which were joined 2,233 civil actions originally filed in the districts receiving the transfers. Thus, 4,963 cases have been a part of Section 1407 pretrial proceedings in the 53 different transferee district courts from 1968 through June 30, 1976. To date, 2,811 have either been remanded by the Panel or terminated by the transferee courts .

The following tables provide statistics on the number of cases trans

ferred since the Panel was enacted, and the flow of cases into and out of

individual districts for both fiscal year 1976 and cumulatively for the entire

period since 1968. The list accompanying the latter table identifies those

cases transferred in the twelve month period ended June. 30, 1976.

TABLE 43 Summary Of Multid istrict Litigation

As . of Durir~g As of 7 1 1 / 75 FY 1976 5 / 3<Jt/76

Actions ~ransferred 2.239 491 2,730

A·ctions Orig inally File d I I in Transferee Districts 1.678 555 2.233

TOTAL ACTIONS SUBJECTSD TO SECTION 1407 PROCEEDINGS 3,917 1,046 4,963

Actions Terminated by Trans -feree COI.i.!:'t.s or Actions Remande d by thE: Panel 2.526 285 2.811 .

TOTAL ACTIOl-:S PRESENTI.Y PENDI NG AND SUBJECTED TO SECTION 1407 PROCSEDINGS 1.3 91 2.152

* I ncludes a total of 114 act~ons which have been rern~~ded oy the Panel and 21 actions reassigr.ed to transferor judges within the transferee dis.trict.

Circuit ond

district

Totill ••••. ... ..• . . . .•..

District of COlumbia • • ••••••

First Circuit ••••. .. •..

Maine • ••••• •• •••••••• • • •• • •• MaGsac:husetts ••• •••••• ••• •• • Sew lIampshire . •• .. .. . . .• _ •• • ilhodc I sLand ... ... .. . .. • .••• Puerto Rico . •..•..• _ • • .• _._.

Second Circuit ......•. .

Con necticut . • . •• .. ••••• .• ••• Now York:

northern •••.• .. • •.. . • . .•.. Eastern ••. .. .•.•• . .••..•.• Southern • .• • ••.• • ••.••••.• Weste r n ....•.•.••.•....•.•

vermont •••..•• • ••••••••• . •••

Third Circuit . •. •••..•.

Delaware •.. . .•.•..•••• • ••.•• New Jersey •••...•.... . . • . . o.

penn!y"lvlIl'!;ia: :eastern •• . .•• . .. . ..•. • . ••• Middle ••....••..•••••••••• Western •.••. . . . .. . . ••• ... .

Vi r gin tll' lands .•. .. . .. •• ... .

Fourth Circuit .•••...•.

Mary land .. . •. . •..•.•••• .. • .. !lore."l Carolina:

Ellatern • .. ••• .. . . ••. .. . . . • Middlo .. .. . .......• •• .• •.• Wea!::ern .••. •. .••.•.. .. . .• •

Sou," Carolina ••..•• • • • . ..•• Virginia :

Eas t ern . • . • . .. .. •.•••••••• Western ..•.•..•...•• .. .•••

West Virqinia : Northern • . .• . . •. . ... . .•.. • Southern •.•..... . ....... . .

FHth Circuit ••.. ..•. ••

Al@ama: Northern •..•.• .... . .... . . . Middle •....•..••...•• . •..• Southern .. ...... • .•.. .. •••

Florida: Northe rn .• .•.. •• • ••••• . • • • Middle •••.....•• • ... .• •. • • SOut."ern ••....••.. . ... • . ••

Georg i a: Northern . . . ... . . • .•••• • . . • Middle ••... . ... .. .... . ••• • Southe rn ... •.. ..• . .• ... . ..

Louisia na: Eastern . .. •.•. .. ••••• . ..•• Hiddle .. ...•.•..•••••. . ..• Western • •...... .• .... .. . . .

Mi ss issippi: Uorthern ..... .. •.. . ..•. • •• Southern ..• . . . •. . . •• • •.. . .

Nor·thern .. .. ... ••. .•• • ..•• Eas tern . .. .•• . .•... • • • • •.. Southern .. ...•. . ••.••• •• .• Western • .. . . .....•.• • .•• ••

222

TA~LE44

NUMBER AND TYPES OF CASES TRANSFERRED BY ORDER OF

THE JUDICIA L PANEL ON MULTI DISTRICT LITIGATION

f iSCAL YEAR 1976111 CUMULATIVE fROM 9/68 TO DATE

Fiscal y elll_r 1976

Actiona trafUilferred

Index to 1976 cases Into Out 0' !tet.

district cHst;rict. Change

491 491

18 +11

24 - 20

16 - 12 5 -5 -,

75 6l +12

-, 1 -1

.1 12 "'9 45 -)1

-2

29 -2.

-,

11 15 i

- ll 2 - 2

12 -1

II 19 -. -9

14 15 +l

-0

16 21 _10 - 2

29 9' -6'

16 - 16

- 2 - 5

20 15 +10

21 -,

22 29 - 27 .... h , - J

" , +2

- 2

- 0 -2 - 5 - J

CUmulat ive 1968- 1976

Actions translerred

Out of Not district dbtrict Change

2.730 2,730

9' " +50

125 94 +31

2 - 2

" 79 61 +10 27 17 +10

6 - -. 19 +11

llO 605 - 275

19 II +6

-, 70 50 +12

"9 '06 - 247 7 - 7

)6 - )6

"0 20' +365

2 12 - 10 10 '0 - 20

4 98 90 +400 20 - 20

50 27 +)1

100 134 - 26

-,. 10 - 10 , 12

2. 7 +17

" - 25

20 2. -, - 1

47

150 274 - 124

II 29 +, , -, 10 - 10

5 - 5 1) -12

72 +' 0

21 - 15

- 2

12 '1 - 29 • -, - 1

12 " - 44 1 4 -, 4 )7 - ll , 7 -.

IBY ORDER OF

LITIGATION

53 TO DATE

7. rred

Ne' Change

+11

- 20

- 12 - 5 - 3

+12

- 3

- 1 +4' - 31

- 26

- 3

- 13 -2 -1

- 6

-. - 4

+)

- 8

+18 -2

- 64

- 16

- 2 - 5

+10

-3

- 27 -3 +2

- 2

- 8 -2 - 5 -3

Cumulative 1968- 1976

Actions transferred

to," d.1strict

Out o f district

2.7)0 2.730

.4

125

19 27

,. 330

,. 2

70 219

568

10

4.8

58

108

3 24

28

150

"

1 72

12

12 1

44

,4 2

61 17

6 -

. 605

13

5 58

486 7

36

203

12 38

.8 28 27

134

44

10 12

7 25

28 4

274

2, 3

10

5 13 )2

21

41 )

56 4

37

N" Change

+50

+3-1

H8 HO -6

+11

-275

+6

- )

+12 - 247

-7 - 36

+365

-10 - 28

... 00 -28 +31

- 26

-38

-10

+17 -25

- 4

- 1 +44

-124

-3 -10

- 5 -12 +40

- 15

-29 -)

- 1

-4

- 44 - )

-33 - 4

Circuit

district

Sixth Circuit •... .. ....

Kentucky; Eastorn .. ... . .. .. ..... . .. . Western ....... . .•..•......

ltichigan: Eastern ..... . Western ...... , ..... •. .... .

Ohio: N':!r·t.~ern •.... , • .•..•...... Southern ......•.•.. • ..• . ..

Tennessee : Eastern ......... • ..•..• . .. Middle ........... .. ...... . Weste rn .. . ... . .. .... . .... .

Seventh Circuit .. . .... .

Illinoio: Northe rn ..... .. ......•.. . . Eastern ......... • • .. . • .... SOutheE:n .. ..... ...•.... . . .

Indianll ; Nor·thQE:n . .. .. ...•.•.. • .... SOutheE:n .•..... . ... ... . ...

Wisconsin ; Eas.tern ............. . ... . • . WesteE:n ...• .. , ....•..•..•.

Eighth CiE:cuit ..•..• . ..

Arkansaa; Easte rn ............ . ..... . WesteE:n .•.... . • . .. . .... ...

Iowa: Northern ...... . .. . . , ... .. • SOuthern • .. ... .. . ..... . ..•

M.1nnesota ....•..... •.. , .... • Hiasou.ri,

EasteE:n . ... . .... ... ... .. .• WesteE:n ... ..•.....•.•.. . • •

Nebraska ... . ........ • .. . . . • • North Dakota .. . ..... . . •...•• South Dilkota . . .......... .. . .

Ninth CiE:cuit . .•..•. .•.

Alaska .... . . .... . .... , . ... . . Arizona ...... .....•..•.• .... Cali !ornia,

Northern ....... , . • ..•..... Eastern •... . . ... ......... , Central .• . ..... .. . .. ...•. . SOuthern •.... , ... . .. . ... . .

Hawaii . ........... ... . .. ... . Idaho . · .............. ...•. . .. Montana •.... .. ........ .. .... NeVil.da .... . ..... • • •• • . ...••• Oregon . . . ...... .• • •• • . . .. , .• Washington,

Ea!iltern . .....•.•.•. , .....• Western .. . .. . ..•.••.... .. ,

Guam . .••••• , •. . , .....•••••• •

Tenth Circui t. .. ..•...•

Colorado ..... .. ..........• , • Kansas ..... .. .... .. •. . .... •. New Mexico .•. .. ... . .....•... Oklahoma,

SQrthern . ... ....•. ..... . •. Eaetern . . .. .....•....... . . Weste rn .......•.......•...

Utah ..... , ......•..•.....•.. Wyotlling .........•..•...• . •.•

232-399 0 - 77 - 16

223

TABlE 44 , NUMBER ANO TYPES OF CASES TRANSFERRED BY ORDER OF

TIlE JUDICIAL PANE L ON MULTIOISTRICT LITIGATION

FISCAL YEAR 1976 & CUMULATIVE FROM 9/68 TO OATE

Index to 1976 casee

lS

19

40 41

41 44 45 46

48

so

51

Pisca1 year 1976

Action9 transferred

Into district

23

"

20

13

.7

41 8

46 1

18'

186

Out of district

52

25 6

33

22 2 2

)0

20

.6

)2

2 27

1 7

25

10 6 1

Change

- 52

-5 -3

-25 - 6

-3 -1

- 10

+1 - 2 - 2

- 1 -5

- 1

-10

- 1

-15

- 1 +. -2

+1

-)

+6 +1'

- 7 - 2 - 1 - 7 -8

- )

- 2

+16~

-10 +laO

- 1

+1

- 5 - 1

cu:.:ulative 1968- 1976

Actions transferred

Into district

81

53

)20

234

81

8'

20

2 64

551

22. 8

285 12

12

314

10 256

7 lS

Out of district

230

12

)6 6

46

"

" 313

265 2 ) .

10

18

1 6

62

25 31 16

561

24

251 8

H O 16

• 5 )

13 27

4 57 -.

120

25 29

2

15 43

Change

-149

... , - 28

- 6

-41 -86

-5 -6

-13

+7

-31 -2 -3

- 8 +71

-13

- 63

_ 7

-1

-1

- 2l +33 - 16

-)

-10

-3' -21

+175 -. -. - )

-3 -13 -27

-4 -45

+194

-15 +227

+7 +20 -4)

224

INDEX TO CASES F.Y. 1976

1. National Student Marketing Litigation (MOL-lOS ) Radiation Incident at washington, D.C. on April 5, 1974 (MDL- 213)· Saigon. South Vietnam Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-221)·

2. Boston, Massachusetts, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-160)

5 . Petroleum Product Antitrust Litigation (MDL-1S0)·

7 . J . F. Kennedy Internation Airport Air Disaster Li tigation (MDL-227)

8. Stirling Homex corporation Securities Litigation (MDL-126)'" Molinaro/Catanzaro Patent Litigation (MDL-170) Republic National - Realty Equities Securities Litigation (MDL-174) *

~~:!~n I~~~s~;~e~~s;~~~r s~~~~i~1!~n Li~~~~:~ (MDL- 246) Generics Corp. of America Securities Litigation (MDL- 2SI )'"

11. Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation (East Coas t ) (MDL-20lA)·

12. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Litigation (MOL- lOg)·

14. Joseph F. Smith Patent Litigation (MDL- 232)

15. Charlotte, N.C., Air Disaster Litigation (MDL- 202) Panty Hose Seaming Patent Litigation (MDL- 209)

16. Upperville, Virginia , Air Disaster Litigation (MDL- 199) Westinghouse Electric Corp. Uranium contract Litigation (MDL-235) Western Electric Co., Inc. Semiconductor Pate nt Litigation (MDL-244)

20. Nissan Motor corp. Antitrust Litigation (MDL- 120)* Bestline Products Securities & Antitrus t Litigation (MDL-l62)* National Airlines, Inc. Maternity Leave Practices and Flight Attendant Weight Program Litigation (MDL-2l8)·

21 . Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation (MDL- 220)· Chicken "Broiler" Antitrust Litigation (MDL-237)

22. Plywood Antitrust Litigation (MDL- 159)*

23. Nathitoches Parish, Louisiana, Air Louisiana . Air Disaster Litiqation (MDL- 193)

3S. Mt. McKinley Nat'l Park, Alaska , Auto Disaster Litigation (MUL- 203) Transocean Tender Offer Securities Litigation (MDL- 223)* Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation (MDL-250)·

39 . Antibiotic Drug Litigation (Non- Settling Cases) (MDL-lO)* Celotex "Technifoarn Products Liability Litigation (MDL-2l0 ) Olympia Brewing Co. Antitrust and Contract Litigation (MDL-242)

40. SouthWestern Bell Telephone CO. Maternity Benefits Litigci.tion (MDL-2l6)·

41. International House of Pancakes Franchise Li tigation (MDL-77) Midwest Milk Monopolization Litigation (MDL-83 )"* piper Aircraft Distribution System Antitrust Litigation (MDL-217) warhead Explosion Aboard USS NEWPORT NEWS (MDL-243) *

43. Sta-Power Industries, Inc. Securities & Antitrust Litigation (MOL-lSI)· IBM Peripheral EDP Devic>!s Antitrust Litigation (MDL- 16]) Air West , Inc. Securities' Litigation (MOL-I77)* Sugar Antitrust Litigation (MDL-201) *

44. Bomb Disaster at Roseville, California (MDL-207)

45. Equity Funding Corp. of America Litigation (MDL-142)· Paris, France, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL- 172) Pago Pago, American Samoa, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL- l76 ) Pennsylvania Life Company Securities Litigation (MOL- ISJ)· Papeete, Tahiti, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL- 206) Bali. Indonesia, Air Disaster Litigation (MDL-215) The "Exorcist" Copyright Litigation (MDL-239)

46. U. S. Financial Securities Litigation (MDL-161)*

48. West Coast Bakery Flour Antitrust Litigation (MDL-178)

50. A. H. Robins Co., Inc . "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation (MOL-2lI)

51. palizzio, Inc. Antitrust Litigation (MDL-233)

* Denotes allegation of a class action un4er Rule 2], Federal Rules of Procedure.

•

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1977

244

TAIlLE33 CLASS ACTION CIVIL SUITS COMMENCED IN STATISTICAL YEAR 1978

AND PENDING JULY 1, 1976 AND JUNE 30,1977 <ALLEGATIONS FILED UNDER RULE 23, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCElllJ

1\1:)

Circuit and Pending Filed Pending

district July 1, 1976 1977 June 30, 1977

Ninth Circujt ... 836 446 892

Alaska. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 12 11 19 Arizona . . . . · ·· . 0 . . - .. 65 51 99 California :

Northern . . ·· . 0 . . .. . 296 170 313 Eastern . .. . .. . .. - . . 50 6 33 Central •• ••• • • 0· .. . 200 93 193 Southern .. . . . . . .. . 33 12 33

Hawaii . . . ... . _ . .. · ·0 · 37 31 54 Idaho . . .... . . .. .. .. .. 10 13 18 Montana . . . ·. 0 . . .. . 6 2 5 Nevada .... . ·· . · · · ·0 · 25 10 19 Oregon • .••••• ••• •• 0 . 35 17 36 Washington :

Eastern . . . . . . . . . . · . 24 12 28 Western . . . . - 0_ ' .

43 18 42 · . Guam . . . .. . ... . . . . . - - -

Tenth Circuit .. · . 16}) 127 188

Colorado . .. . . .. . . . . . . 37 27. 40 Kansas .... . .... . . . · . 66 33 80 New Mexico . . • •• • 0 •• • 26 27 22 Oklahoma:

Northern . .. .. ... . . . . 18 6 13 Eastern ~ . 1 2 · 2 . .... ·0_·

Western .. . .. .. . 5 11 11 Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6 18 19 Wyoming 1 3 1 . . ' , ' . . . . . . . .

TRANSFER OF CASES UNDER 28 Us. C §1407

During the twelve months ending June 30, 1977, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 345 civil actions which were originally filed in 69 different districts courts to 24 transferee district courts. In 1976, 491 civil cases were transferred from 69 different district courts to 24 transferee districts for the purpose of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

ariana estariel

Rectangle

244

TAILE33 :OMMENCED IN STATISTICAL YEAR 1976 ILY 1 1976 AND JUNE 30,1977 .E 23: FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

ending Filed Pending

1, 1976 1977 June 30, 1977

8~ 446 892

12 11 19 65 51 99

296 170 313 50 6 33

200 93 193 33 12 33

37 31 54

10 13 18

6 2 5 25 10 19

35 17 36

24 l2 28 43 18 42

160 127 188

37 27 40

66 33 80 26 27 22

18 6 13 1 2 2

5 11 11

6 18 19 1 3 1

TDER28 USC §1407

s ending June 30, 1977, the Judicial p~~el ~n ferred 345 civil actions which were ongtna

71

:ourts to 24 transferee district courts. In 19 24 rred from 69 different district courts to '31

. l'd t d pretn lrpose of coordmated or conso 1 a e

245

The district judges to whom actions have been assigned by the Panel have the responsibility of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in those actions. Unless an action is closed in the transferee ourt or ordered transferred by the transferee judge to the transferor court c .

or other distnct under 28 U.S.c. §1404(a) or 28 U.S.c. § 1406, each of the transferred actions will, at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, be remanded by the Panel for trial to the district where the action was originally filed.

Since the enactment of the Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April 29, 1968 (Public Law 90-296), which established Section 1407 and the panel, there have been 3,075 transfers of civil actions to which were joined 2,498 civil actions originally filed in the districts receiving the transfers. Thus, 5,573 cases have been a part of Section 1407 pretrial proceedings in the 54 different transferee districts courts from 1968 through June 30, 1977. To date, 3,381 actions have either been remanded by the Panel or terminated by the transferee courts.

The following tables (Figure 13 and Table 34) provide statistics on the number of cases transferred since the Panel was enacted, and the flow of cases into and out of individual districts for the twelve month period ending June 30, 1977, and cumulatively for the entire period since 1968. Information on specific cases transferred can be obtained by writing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

FIGURE 13 SUMMARY OF MUL TIDISTRICT LITIGATION AS OF JUNE 30, 1976 AND 1977

SU1-h'1ARY OF MULTI DISTRI CT LITIGl\TION

As o f During 12 months

2I.U.Th e n ding 6/30/77

A~tions ~ran5ferred 2, 730 345

Acti on s Original ly File d in Transferee Di s t r icts 2 .2.P ~

TOTAL ACTIONS StIBJECTED TO SECTI ON 1407 PROCEEDINGS 4 1 9 6 3 610

Actions Te r minate d !Jy Tr ans-feree Cour ts o r Ac tions Re;nanded by t he Pane l ~...&lll (570)

TOT.'IL ACT!CilS PRESENTLY PEND I NG AND S:JBJECTED TO SECTI ON 140 7 PROCEEDINGS 2, 152.

* Includ es a total of 15 2 actions wh ich h ave been remanded ~Y the Pane l and 21 act i ons r eass igned t o tran s fe ror Judges \V'ithin t he t r ansfer ee di s t ric t .

/'. s of §.Ll!UrL

3, 07 5

2 ,49S

5 , 57 3

(3. 391)*

2,192

Circuit 1977

and Into Out of district Dist ric t District

Total all districts 345 345

District of Columbia . 18 7

First Circu it 1 10

Maine . 0 0 Massachusetts . 1 7 New Hampshire 0 1 Rhode Island . 0 2 Puerto Rico . 0 0

Second Circuit . 22 42

Connecticut . ... 0 6 New York:

Northern . 0 3 Eastern . 16 5 Southern 6 24 Western 0 2

Vennont 0 2

Third Circuit . 12 43

Delaware . 1 2 New Jersey : 5 14 Pennsylvania:

Eastern . 6 23 Middie . 0 1 Western 0 3

Virgin Islands . 0 0

Fourth CircuiL . 3 20

2 3

TABLE 34 CASES TRANSFERRED ~y ORDER OF

THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MUl T IDISTRICT LITIGATION STATISTICAL YEAR 1977 & CUMULAT IVE FROM 9/68 TO DATE

1968-1977 Circuit

I nto Out of and

1977

In to Out of District Di s tri ct district District Di stric t

3,075 3,075 Sixth Circuit . 8 21

112 . 51 Kentucky: Eastern .. 0 1

126 104 Western 0 1 Michigan:

0 2 Eastern . 3 6 80 68 Western . . .. 0 3 27 18 Ohio:

0 8 Northern . 3 3 .. . .. 19 8 Southern . 0 4

Tennessee: 352 647 Eastern 0 0

Midd le 2 1 19 19 Western 0 2

2 8 Seventh Circuit . 33 18 86 63

245 510 Illinois: 0 9 Northern 33 10 ... .. 0 38 Eastern . 0 0

Southern . 0 0 580 246 Indiana:

Northern . 0 1 3 14 Southern . 0 1

15 52 Wiscons in :

Eastern . 0 3 504 121 Western 0 3

0 29 58 30 Eighth Circuit . 9 60

0 0 Arkonsos :

111 154 Eastern . ~ . .. 0 0 Western 0 0

o B \Iowa:

M ....... h ......... .\ 2 \

1968-1977

Into District

89

53 0

11 0

8 6

2 3

6

353

267 0 0

0 81

5 0

99

I a 0

o \

Out of District

251

13 6

42 9

49 96

7 8

2.1

331

275 2 3

9

11

21 10

212

7 J

:\ 12

Rhode Is land . Pue rto Rico .

Second Circui t .

Connecticut New York:

Northe rn . Eastern . Southe rn . Western

Vennont .

Third Circuit .

Delaware . New Jersey ~ .

Pennsylvania: Eastern Middie . Western

Vi rgin Is lands .

}o~ourth Circuit .

Maryland North Carolina:

Eastern . Middle. Western

South Carolina . Virginia:

Eastern . Western

West Virginiu: Northern Southern .

Fifth Circuit .

Alabama : Northe rn . Middle . Southern . ... .

Florida: Northe rn . Middle . Southe rn .

Georg ia:

Northern . Middle . .. ..

Southe rn .

Louisiana:

Eastern . Middle . Weste rn ..

Mississippi : Northe rn . Southe rn , ..... ,.

Texas: Northern , Eastern .

Southe rn .

Western Canal Zone .

0 2 0 0 0 19

22 42 352

0 6 19

0 3 2 16 5 86

6 24 245 0 2 0 0 2 0

12 43 580

1 2 3 5 14 15

6 23 504 0 1 0 0 3 58 0 0 0

3 20 111

2 3 8

0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 24 0 1 0

0 3 28 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 10 47

44 54 194

0 2 33 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 ! 2 0

0 4 1 2 9 74

4 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 3 31 0 ~ U

0 9 6

0 1 0 0 5 0

15 4 27 0 2 1 4 3 8 0

~ 3 3

0 0 0

8 8

647

19

8 63

510 9

38

246

14 52

121 29 30

0

154

47

11 13

8 26

31 4

1 13

328

31 3

10

7 17 4 1

26 0 2

41 5

16

1 9

60 6

40 10

0

Northern . Southern

Tennessee: Eastern . Midd le . Western

Seventh Circu it .

Il linois : Northe rn Eastern Southern .

Indiana: Northern Southern .

Wiscons in : Eastern .

Western

Eighth Circuit

Arkans8!:1: Eastern . Western

iowa: Northern .

Southern . Minnesota Missouri :

Easte rn . Western

Nebraska . North Dakota . . Sout.h Dakota .

Ninth Circuit .

Alaska . Arizona .

Californ ia: Northe rn .

Eastern . Central Southern

Hawaii . Idaho Montana . .,. Nevada . Oregon Was hington:

Eastern . .

Western

Guam .

Tenth Circuit

Colorado . Kansas New Mexico . Oklahoma:

Northern .

Eastern Western

Utah . Wyoming

3 3 0 4

0 0 2 1

0 2

33 18

33 10 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 1

0 3 0 3

9 6 0

0 0 0 I 0 I

0 \ 2

0 6 3 38

6 2 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0

43 62

0 1 0 1

19 21 0 11

23 13 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

0 0

1 1 0 1

152 8

0 4 151 0

0 0

0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0

NOTE: Names of cases transferred may be obtained fro m the Judicial Panel o n Multidistrict Litigation .

8 49 6 96

2 7 3 8 6 21

353 331

267 275. 0 2 0 3

0 9 81 11

5 21 0 10

99 212

0 7 0 ( 1

0 3 :\ 12

23 100

8 27 65 37

0 20 0 2 0 3

593 623

0 35 3 25

248 272 8 19

307 123 12 16

0 17 2 5 0 3 0 14 0 31

0 4

13 58 0 1

4GG 128

10 29 407 29

0 2

6 7 7 0

36 113 0 45 0 0

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1978

226

I, 1978. This is the second year in 's have shown a decline. The 2,586 ~rcent lower than the 3,1.53 caSes Test number, recorded SInce the m collecting statistics on class ~ 41 shows the proportion of class il cases. . ~ num ber of class actIOn. cases , the year . those filed durmg the :ng on Jude ~o, .1978, by distri?t. ers were in IllmOls, Northern, With two other districts with more than t years' leaders, Texas, Southern, k, Southern, with 1~0. . wolving class action allegatIons the total 21,924 prison.er petitions class action cases. ThIS compares

!r petitions for 1977 and 35.5. for the decline . in prisoner petitIons ~ll as the pending backlog of such

rable 43 tion Allegations tions Filed and Pending !ding June 30, 1973 through 1978

Pending

ule 23 Total Rule 23

355 7,912 322 337 9,151 466 367 10,469 564 397 11,852 630 252 13,353 572 174 14,799 441

'iled by jurisdiction and nature o~ lix table X-5. This table shows that es (1 477) account for 57.1 perc en tions' filed. Case types with 100 .or ld the percentage of total civil fl1-wn below:

227

-Total Civil Class Action Class Action as Nature of Suit Filings Filings

~ % of Total Total civil filings 12~153 ~586 2.1 selected, Nature of Suits

12,829 1,477 11.5 Civil RIghts Prisoner Petitions 21,924 174 0.8 Antitrust 1,477 183 12.4 securities, Commodities, and Exchange 1,703 167 9.8 other Statutory Actions 3,209 101 3.1

Total 41,142 1,919 0.5 Percent of Total Filings 33.4 74.2 --

The number of class action cases pending by district, jurisdiction and nature of suit can be found in appendix table X-4. The district with the largest total class action caseload is Texas Southern. Three other districts have 250 or more class action cases pending. They are New York, Southern with 327, Illinois, Northern with 287 and California, Northern with 272.

Transfer of Cases Under U.S.C. 1407

During the twelve months ending June 30, 1978, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred 696 civil actions which were originally filed in 81 different district courts to 28 transferee district courts. In 1977, 345 civil cases were transferred from 69 different district courts to 24 transferee districts for the purpose of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Table 44 Cumulative Summary of Actions

Subjected to 28 U.S.C. 1407 Proceedings

12 Month As of Period Ended As of Actions July 1, 1977 June 30, 1978 June 30, 1978

Transf erred 3,075 696 3,771 Originally Filed in

Transferee Districts 2,498 252 2,750 Total Actions Subjected

to Section 1407 Proceedings 5,573 948 6,521

Terminated By Transferee Courts or Remanded by

Panel 3,381 667 *4,048 Total Actions

Pending and Subjected to Section 1407

Proceedings 2,192 - 2,473

*Includes a total of 164 actions Which have been remanded by the Panel and 24 actions reassigned to transferor judges within the transferee district.

•

ariana estariel

Rectangle

Circuit And

Dis trict

Total All Districts ...

District of Columbia .. . ... .

First Circuit . ..... . . .

Maine ....... . ............ . • Hassachusetts ... . ......•. . . New Hampshire .. .. . •........ Rhode Island .......... . . . . . Puerto Rico ............. . . .

Second Circui t. . .... . .

Connecticut . ........ , . .... . New York:

Nort hern .... , . . ..•.• .. . . . Eastern ...... .. . ...•. .... Southern .. . .. .•. . .. .. . . . . '<lestern .. ........ · .. ··· · .

Vermont ... . ............ . .. .

Third Circuit. ... . .. . .

De laware . .... , . . .. .. ...... . New Je rsey ... . . .. ... • . ·.· • · Pennsy 1 vania:

Eas t ern ... . .. · .···· · · ··· . ~1iddle ..... . ....... . . • . . . Wes t e rn .... , ........... . .

Virgin I s lands ... . ...... . . .

Fourth Circuit. ..... . .

f>taryland .... . . ... .. . .. . ... , North Carolina:

Eas tern ... ..... . . . .. . . . · . Niddle . . ...... . ...•..... . \"es t ern. .... . . ... . . .... ..

c: .... .. .. .... r ., ....... l -I ,~.,

TABLE 45 CASES TRANSFERRED BY ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON HULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION , TWELVE HONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30 , 1978, AND CUHULATIVE FROM SEPTE~mER 1968

12 Honths Ending June 30, 1978

Into l out Of District District

696

125

208

10

34 16/,

30

39

29 10

)0

696

I,

10

24

15 1 5 3

58

14

2 10 28

3 1

56

3 10

29 5 9

36

Cumulative 1968-197 8

Into l out Of District District

3 , 771

237

126

80 27

19

560

29

38

2 120 '109

619

3 15

533 10 58

141

2/,

3,771

54

1 28

2 83 19 13 11

705

33

10 73

538 12 39

302

17 62

150 34 39

190

51

13 22 12 36

Circuit And

District

Sixth Circuit ..... .

Kentucky: Eastern . .....• ·· • · · ·· . Western ...... . . . ....•.

Michigan: Eastern .. .... . ...•.. . . Western ..... . . • •. . . . ..

Ohio: Northern ........ •.... • Southern . .. . . • . .. . . ...

Tennessee: Eastern ..... . ... . ...•. Middle .... . .... • ..... . Wes t ern ... . . ... · ····· .

Seventh Circuit . .. .

Illino is: Northern ... . . . .. . . . .. . Eastern ..... . ...... .. . Southern ...... . .. .. .. .

Indiana: Northern . . ...•. . . . ... , Southern .... . . .. . • ....

Wisconsin: Eastern .... . . ..... . . . . l~es tern .... . .. .. . .... .

Eight h Circuit . ....

Arkansas : Eastern . . ....•........ I"estern ........... . . . .

I owa: Northern ... . .......... Southern . ... ..• .......

Hinnesota ... . . . ......... Nissouri:

Eas t e rn . .. ........... .

12 Months Ending June 30, 1978

Into l Out Of District I District

12

II

16

16

10

35

13 5

52

41

82

- I

\ 3 3

60

Cumul at ive 1968-1978

Into l out Of Dis trict District

101

53

22

369

283

81

llD

3 27

12

286

13 6

49 10

62 101

13 11 21

383

316 2 5

11 12

25 1 2

294

9 1.

6 15

160

19

N N 00

"''Iew nUlllll S II.Ll.~ •••• • • •••• • •• •

Rhode Island . . . . . ... .... . . . Puerto Rico ........ .. ...•..

Second Circuit ... .. . . .

Coonec ticu t . .... •... ... • . ..

New York : Northern . .... . .......... . Eastern .. .... . .. ........ . Southern . ... . . .. . . . . . ... . \~estern . .. . . .•.. • .• . . . .•.

Vermont .... . . . . . ... · . . . · ·· .

Third Circuit ... .... . .

De l aware . .. .. .. . . .. .... . . . . New Jersey .. .... .•... .• . . . . Pe nnsylvania:

Eastern . . .... . . .• . .. · · · · . ~l1dd le ............• . . ..• . Western .. .. . . ... ....... . .

Virgin Is l ands ............ .

Fourth Circuit. .. .... .

Maryland .. .... . . . . . .. . . . . .. North Carolina :

Eas t ern . . . .. . .. . .. . . ... .. Nidd1e ... ...... . . .. . ... .. Wes t ern . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . .

South Carolina . . .. . .. .. .... Vi r ginia:

Eastern . . . ....... .. .. .. .. Western . . . ... . . . . ... ... . .

West Virginia : Nor thern . ..... . . .. . . . . .. . Southe rn . . .. . . .... .. . . .. .

Fifth Circuit .. . . . . . ..

Al abama : Northern . . ..... .... . ..... Hidd1e .... . ..• •.. .. ... • . • Southern . ..... ......... . .

Florida : Northern ....... . ... ... . . . Hidd1e .. .. ... • ...• . •. . ' . . • Southern ... ...... .. . . .. . .

Georgia : Northern .. . ..... . .. . .. . . . fl1dd1e . . ..... ... .. • . •.•.• Sou thern ........ .. . . . . •. •

Louis i ana : Eas t ern . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ... . Middle .. .. . . .. • . • . • . •.• . • Western . ..... . . . • . • .• . . .

Hiss i ssipp i : Nort hern . . .. .. . . •.•.•... Southern . . .. . .•.....•.. .

Texas : Nor thern . ..... . . . ... . . .. Eas tern . ... ... . . .. . . . . . . Southern . ... .... . . . ..... Wes t ern .. . .... .... . .....

Canal Zone ... . . .. .... .... .

•

--

208

10

-34

164 --

39

--29 10 --

30

30

78

17

13

32

-5 -3 19

58 560

14 29

2 2 10 120 28 409

3 -1 -

56 619

3 3 10 15

29 533 5 10 9 58 - -

36 141

38

2 9 3 4 24

10

28

1 47

84 272

14 33

1 7 1

10 91

23

37 5 6

4 33 8 1 8 39 7 3

13 11

705

33

Northern . . .... . ...... . Southern ... . ...... . . .. 101 tv

Tennessee : tv Eastern . .... .. .. . . . ... 13 00

Hiddle . . . ............ . 11 Hestern . ..... , .. . . . ... 21

10 Seventh Circuit . ... 16 52 369 383

73 538

12 39

I ll i nois: Northern . ... ... ... . . . . 16 41 283 316

Eastern . . .. . ...... . . .. 2

Southern . . .... . . • ....• 5

302 Indiana: Northe rn . . ... .. . . ... . . 11

17 Southern . ....... .... .. 81 12

62 Wisconsin: Eas t ern ... . . ...•.. . . . . 25

150 Hestern . . ... . . . .... ... 12

34 39 Eighth Circuit . .. . . 10 82 110 294

-Arkansas:

190 Eastern . . .. .. ...• . . .. . 9 lofestern . . ... . .... . .. . . ].

51 Iowa: Northern . . ... . •.•. ... . 3 6

13 Southern ... .. . ..... . .. 3 3 15 22 Minnesota ...... .. .... . . . 60 27 160 12 Hissouri: 36 Eastern . ...... . . • ...• . 4 12 19

Western . ... ... .. .. ... . 3 68 45 36 Nebraska . .. " ..... ..... . 1 21

5 North Dako t a . .. . . . ...... 2 4 South Dakota . .... . ...... 1

1 14 NInt h Circui t . .. ... 37 243 629 866

412 Al aska .. ....... . . . . . .... 3 38 Arizona . .. ... . . .. ....... 10 35 California:

45 Northern .... .. . . ... . . . 1 2 60 259 332 I, Eas t e rn ......... ... .. . 20 8 39

10 Central .. .... . . . . ... . . 11 109 318 232 Sout hern .. . ... . . .. . . .. 3 12 19

8 Hawaii . . ......• . . .... ... 13 4 30 tv 24 Ida ho ..... . ... • . .... .... 1 2 6 tv

\0 51 Hontana . .. . .•...... .. ... 4 7

Nevada ........ .. ... . ... . 4 18 31 Oregon . ....... . ...... . . . 3 34

Washington: Eas t ern ... . . . .... .... . 2 6 Wes t ern . .. .. .... . . .... 11 18 69

50 Guam .. . . ... .. . .. . . ..... . 1 7 N. Harianas Islands . ... .

19 Tent h Circuit ... . .. 141 23 607 151

3 12 Colorado ... .. .... ....... 6 16 36

Kansas ....... .. . .. . . . . .. 134 541 33

64 New Mexico ... . .. ....... . 5

14 Oklahoma :

48 Nor thern . . . . ...... . . . . 6 10

17 Eas tern ........... . .. . 7 1 Hestern . .... . .... .. ... 37 16

Uta h ... .... .. . ... . .. , . .. 49 l~yom1ng .•.... ... . . ••.. .. 1

230

Since the enactment of the Multidistrict Litigatio Act approved Apr~l 29, 1968, (Public Law 90-296), Whie~ established Section 1407 and the Panel, there have been 3 771 transfers of civil actions to which were joined 2,750 ~i\1'l actions originally filed in the districts receiving the transfer~ Thus, 6,521 cases have been a part of Section 1407 pretri . proceedings in the 58 different transferee district cour~ from 1968 through June 30, 1978. To date, 4,048 actions hav either been remanded by the Panel or terminated by th: transferee courts. .

A look at the total workload of the Panel as of June 30, 1978, reveals that the 2,473 pending actions are distributed throughout 155 dockets. To date, 2,080 actions in those dockets have been terminated by the transferee courts Or remanded by the Panel, as have 1,968 actions in 81 other docket s that have resulted in transfers under Section 1407 and have been completely closed. In addition, 875 actions in 109 groups of multidistrict litigation have been docket ed by the Panel but have not been centralized under 28 U.S.C. 1407.

Table 45 provides statistics on the number of cases transferred since the Panel was enacted, and the flow of cases into and out of individual districts for the twelve month period ended June 30, 1978, and cumulatively for the entire period since 1968. Information on specific cases transferred can be obtained by writing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Li tiga tion.

CRIMINAL CASELOAD

Changes to Appendix Criminal Statistical Tables Since 1940, the Administrative Office has maint ained

without interruption statistical data on criminal cases and defendants disposed of by the U. S. district courts. During the year ended June 30, 1976, changes in the criminal statistical syst em became necessary as a result of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. To fully implement the requirements of this Act, the criminal docket form, A.O. 256, was revised October 1975 to identify all levels of offense, i.e., felony, misdemeanor, minor and petty tried by a district judge. The inclusion of minor

offenses a and the ex, (for which granted ,01

years prlO' with the (which co court data comparabl

As need to c: cases, the mittee on in Novemt cal tables tables of t

For nal appen< contained and the fE petty caSE

ThE picture oj court, fro to disposi type of 0

minor an< criminal ~

In show by offense f nated anc 1978.

Ta criminal offense, 1978.

Tv proceede prosecuti

TI: offense a

TE defendan offense.

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL

ON


ANNUAL STATISTICS

1979

ength of Time Pending, ld 1979 es Omitted)

.. . _ -I PCllding on June 3D, 1979

~ Three Y car; lind Uver

TotH l :'urnber Percent·

8.0 20.H3 2.402 11.8

11.3 3,675 1,065 29.0 9.3 1.227 121 9. 9

0.4 5.472 319 5.8 12.8 2.028 368 18. 1

1. 5 3.150 310 9.8 5.4 2.115 132 4.9

0.8 522 3 0.6 5.2 111 23 3.2 6.6 843 61 1.2

8.3 11,684 949 8. 1

1.1 4. 909 420 8.6 6.0 180 45 5.8 5.9 1.049 ;4 5.1

10.1 1,395 94 6.7 5.6 1,666 88 5.3

9.9 1.110 103 9.3 16.8 175 145 18.1

1.4 9. 892 822 8.3

11. 2 1,&94 171 10.4 6.9 820 95 11 .6

2.9 287 5 1.7 5.8 841 62 7.4

10.3 1.661 195 11.7

1. 3 1.243 26 2.1 9. 4 1,673 213. 12.7 1.8 898 15 U 2.1 263 5 1.9 8.8 512 29 5.7

11.1 19,529 2,055 10.5

9.4 608 55 9.0 17.0 1,750 282 16.1

9.4 2,938 330 11 .2 11.2 1,346 201 14.9 12.4 4,366 417 9. 6 9.8 1,116 136 12.2

11.2 1,022 126 12. 3 8.0 612 32 5.2 5.9 535 44 8.2

12.9 655 72 11.0 4.9 1,412 64 4.5

10.0 539 51 10.6 10.9 %,224 222 10.0 21.0 351 11 4.8

- 55 - -6.4 1,208 511 1.2

6.6 1,614 130 8. 1 8.1 1,858 195 10.5 2.6 169 22 2.9

1.6 629 59 9.4 1.0 305 1 2.3 3.7 1,024 41 4.0 1.1 195 55 6.9 3.2 214 8 3.1

.

257

Table 41 Districts With 200 or More Civil Cases Pending Three Years or More

For the Twelve Month Periods Ended June 30,1978-1979 (Land Condemnation Cases Excluded)

Percent District 1978 1979 Change

Massachusetts ... oooooo ............................... 4,426 5,314 20.1 New York, Southern , .... . ...... . .... 711 696 -2.1 . West Virginia, Southern .......... ... .. 588 662 12.6 California, Central, ................. 575 417 -27.5 Florida, Middle ... ... ............... 450 373 -17.1 Louisiana, Eastern ........ .. .......................... 403 528 31.0 Kentucky, Eastern .................................... 400 1,065 166.3 Texas, Southern .. .. .... ................................ 390 493 26.4 New York, Eastern .. . ... .... ........ 357 432 21.0 Illinois, Northern .......... ...... .... .. .. .. ............ 347 420 21.0 Connecticut ................. .... . . 315 363 15. 2 Michigan, Eastern ... .. .............. 293 319 8.9 California, Northern ................. 284 330 16.2 Arizona .......................... 264 282 6.8 New York, Western ........... .. .... . 220 156 - 29.1 Pennsylvania, Western .............................. 220 146 -33.6 Michigan, Western ...... .... ........ ...... .. .......... 216 368 70.4 Texas, Northern ............. . ... . .. 214 314 46.7 Georgia, Northern .... .......... .. ............ ........ 200 228 14.0 Ohio, Northern ...... .... .. . . ...... .. 195 310 59.0 Washington, Western ................. 184 222 20.7 District of Columbia ................. 182 215 18.1 California, Eastern .................. 153 201 31.4 Missouri, Western ................•.. 140 213 52.1

Table 42 provides a distribution by type of case, of all civil cases pending three years or more as of June 30, 1979 (land condemnation cases excluded). The most significant increases in these cases between 1978 and 1979 were in actions under statutes, which increased 23.2 percent from 10,777 to 13,272. Substantial increases were recorded in Ute older antitrust, employment civil rights, and I.C.C. cases.

Trans/ero/Cases Under 28 U.S.C.1407

During the twelve months ending June 30, 1979, the Judicial Panel on Mult idistrict Litigation transferred 936 civil actions which were originally filed in 87 different district courts to 20 transferee district court s for inclusion in coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with 282 actions already pending in the transferee districts. In 1978, 696 civil cases were transferred from 81 different district courts to 28 transferee districts for the purpose of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with 252 act ions already pending in the transferee districts.

ariana estariel

Rectangle

260

The district judges to whom actions have been assigned by the Panel have the responsibility of conducting coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in those actions. Unless an action is closed in the transferee court or ordered transferred by the transferee judge to the transferee court or other district under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. 1406, each of the transferred actions will, at the conclusion of the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, be remanded by the Panel for trial and any other appropriate proceedings to the district from which the action was transferred by the Panel.

Since the enactment of the Multidistrict Litigation Act, approved April 29, 1968 (Public Law 90-296), which established 28 U.S.C. 1407 and the Panel, multidistrict dockets have included 4,706 transfers of civil actions and an additional 3,032 civil actions originally filed in the district receiving the transfers. Thus 7,738 cases have been a part of Section 1407 pretrial proceedings in the 59 different transferee district courts from 1968 through June 30, 1979. To date, 4,564 actions have been terminated by the transferee courts or reassigned to transferor judges within the transferee courts and 421 actions have been remanded by the Panel.

A look at the caseload in the transferee districts as of June 30, 1979, reveals that the 2,753 pending actions are distributed throughout 158 dockets. To date, 2,035 actions in those dockets have been terminated by the transferee courts or remanded by the Panel, as have 2,901 actions in 101 other

Table 43 Cumulative Summary of Actions Subjected to 28 U.S.C. 1407 Proceedings, 1968 - 1979

As of July I, 1978 As of

Actions (Adjusted) 1979 June 30, 1979

Transferred . . . . • . .. ..•. ' . ' . •.... . . .. ..• 3,770 936

Originally Filed in Transferee Districts 2,750 282

Total Subjected to Section 1407 Proceedings .....•• . ...•........ . . . 6,520 1,218

Terminated by Transferee Courts or Remanded by the Panel . •.. . . .. . ..... . (4,048) (937)

Total P"resently Pending and Subjected To Section 1407 Proceedings . •• . . ...... 2,473 -

• Includes a total of 421 actions which have been remanded by the Panel and 40 actions reassigned to transferor judges within the transferee districts.

4,706

3,032

7,738

· (4,985)

2,753

..

Cases Trans For the Twelve Mo

Circuit and

District

Total All Dist1

District of Columbi

First Circuit

Maine ..•.•... . Massachusetts . .. New Hampshire .. Rhode Island . . . . puerto Rico .. .. .

Second Circui

Connecticut . . .. . New York:

Northern .. . Easte rn .. . . Southern . . . Western .. . ,

Vermont .... .. ,

Third Circuit

Delaware . . .. . . New Jersey ... . Pennsylvania:

Eastern . . . Middle •... Western .. .

Virgin Islands .. .

Fourth Circu

Maryland • ... .. North Carolina:

Eastern . . . Middle . . . . Western . . .

South Carolina .. Virginia:

Eastern .. . Western . . .

West Virginia: Northern .. Southern . .

Fifth Circ:ui

Alabama: Northern . . Middle .. . . Southern . .

Florida: Northern . Middle . . . Southern.

Georgia: Northern. Mi~dle ... Southern .

Louisiana: Eastern .. Middle . .. Western ..

Mississippi: Northern . Southern .

Texas: Northern . Eastern .. Southern . Western . .

Canal Zone .. .

261

actions have been assigned Table 44 ility of conducting coordi- Cases Transferred by Order of The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Jceedings in those actions. For the Twelve Month Period Ended June 30,1 979, and Cumulative From September 1968

transferee court or ordered e to the transferee court or 12 Months Ending Cumulative

June 30, 1979 1968-1979

4(a) or 28 U.S.C. 1406, each

I Total

at the conclusion of the Circuit Pending In and Into Out of Into I Out of Transferee

pretrial proceedings, be District District District District District District ,

and any other appropriate Total All District .. .••... 936 936 3,771 3,771 2,473

~hich the action was trans- Distr ict of Columbia ..•.. •••. . 443 680 56 653

First Circuit .....•. • •.. 36 126 164 20

Maine . .•••••...•.•. . .•• . • 2 4

lJultidistrict Litigation Act, Massachusetts •.••.•.•••••. . 19 80 102 20 New Hampshire ..•....•.. •.. 4 27 23

)lic Law 90-296), which Rhode Island ...... . ........ 7 20 Puerto Rico ...........••.•. 4 19 15

e Panel, multidistrict dock- Second Circuit ••... . .... 46 79 606 784 401

rs of civil actions and an Connect icut .. . ....... • .•.•. 29 41 15

~inally filed in the district New York: Northern .. •••••••• •••. 4 2 14

8 cases have been a part of Eastern . . . • ••. ..• . ...• 36 16 156 89 237 Southern . . .......•... . 10 33 419 571 149

; in the 59 different trans- Western . ... . .... • .... . 15 27 Vermont .............. .... 3 42

through June 30, 1979. To Third Circuit .. . ....•.•. 35 75 654 377 220

rminated by the transferee Delaware • .. ... ...• .. •• .... 5 3 22

)r judges within the trans- New Jersey •. .... • ..••..... 38 15 100 Pennsylvania:

lVe been remanded by the Eastern ....•.. ..•••• .. 35 22 568 172 163 Middle .....• • ..... . ..• 1 10 35 5 Western •. •. .•...... . .• 9 58 48 50

Virgin Islands . ....• • . • • . . . ..

Fourth Circuit •....•. ..• 35 141 225 46

e transferee districts as of Maryland •• • .•.•• .. •• • .. . • • 38 59 36

2,753 pending actions are NOI"th Carolina: Eastern .•. .• ...... .... 14

:s. To date, 2,035 actions in Middle .•.• • . . ••.••••• . 3 23 Western ... •.•. . ..• . ... 24 15

:ed by the transferee courts South Carolina .. •••• .•• •• • •• 41 Virginia:

e 2,901 actions in 101 other Eastern ....•.... ... •.. 28 45 10 Western ......... ... ... 10

West Virginia: 1 3

l Northern ....... . . .•. . • Southern .• .•. ....•.... 47 15

~8 U.S.C.1407 Proceedings, 1968 - 1979 Fifth Circuit .... . .•.... 42 135 314 547 358 •

As of Alabama: Northern .. .. • .. ... • . .. 24 33 69

July 1, 1978 As of Middle . .. ... • •. . ... .. . 3 7 (Adjusted) 1979 June 30, 1979 Southern .. .. ...... . ... 10

Florida: Northern . .. ....... . ... 2 10

3,770 936 4,706 Middle .............• .. 17 1 41 5 Southern ..... . . ....... 12 30 103 81 53

2,750 282 3,032 Georgia:

28 37 126 Northern ...... . ... . •. . Middle ..... •. . . . . . •. • . 1 Southern ....... . . .• .. . 8

6,520 1,218 7,738 Louisiana: Eastern . .. ....•.... .. . 38 56 34 Middle ......•• .. . •.... 5 8 6 Western .... • ........•. 8 22 22

(4,048) (937) ·(4,985) Mississippi: Northern ....•.......•• 4 Southern .....•.• . ..•.. 18

2,473 2,753 Texas: Northern .......•...... 14 38 78 20 Eastern . . ..•. . . •...• • . 5 1 19 Southern .......•.. .... 13 6 52 54 87

nded by the Panel and 40 actions Western .......• . . ... .. 3 7 6 24 districts. Canal Zone . . ...... ... .... .

262 Table 44

Cases Transferred By Order ofthe Iudicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, For t he Twelve Month Period Ended Iune 30, 1979, and Cumulative From September 1968

I ~ \Iontll...; 1:IIJIf1l: \ ' 1Il1lulH ll Vl'

JUlh' :10. 1 9 -; ~ 1 IYtltJ- 1 9 7 ~

I I r ollll

(' ,reUil P(, lIdi l1~ III and Inl o Out vr into uut v, T rd llsf('r l'l'

Uis tri e t Ubtr ic t IJi s l rit' l IILSl r i l' t LJi s lrH.'t Uistrlct

Six th Clfl'uit 70 IU :! 350 ~ I

r\ C'ntllc h: y : ERst e rn . . . . . . . .. 53 13 Western .. _'0.- .... .. II

:\1ichignn: ERs l c rn . . .. . ... . 20 23 ti y II Wes t ern .. . .. . . ... 8 18

O hio: Northern ... .. . . . . 11 73 10 Southern . .. . ... 17 118

Tcnilcssce: cas t ern ...... .... .. 18 . \;lidd le .. .. ...... .. . . 12 Western .. . .. . . . . .. . .. 24

Seventh C i r cu i t . . .. .. 17 54 38 6 437 132

Illinois: Northern ... . . . ... . 17 25 300 34 1 127 Central . .. . . .. .. .. 3 5 Southern . . .. .. . .. .. 1 6

Indiana: Northern ... .... . . . .. . . 15 Southern .. . . . ... ... 81 20

Wisconsin: Eas tern . .. . . ... .. 33 Western . .. .. . . ... . . . 17

Eighth C ircuit ... .. . . 21 98 131 392 68

Arkansas: Eastern . ..... . . . .. . . 10 Western . . ..... . . . . . .. 2

Iowa: Northern .... . . ... ... . 6 12 Southern . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 3 3 18

Minnesota . ... ..... .. ..... . 64 30 224 Missouri:

Eastern . . .. .. . .... . . . . 12 33 Western . .. . . .. . .. 18 86 51 55

Ne braska . .... .. . . . . .. .. . . . 25 North Dakota. .... . . ...... . 12 South Dakota . . . .... .... . . . . 5

Ninth Circuit .. .. ..... . . 198 306 827 1, 17 2 567

Alaska . .... . ... .. . . . . .. . . 6 44 Arizona .. ... . .. ... . . ... . . . 10 45 37 California:

Northern . . ... . . .... ... 12 35 271 367 175 Eastern .... .. . . ... .. . 21 8 60 1 Central ..... . . ... .... 198 322 430 146 Southern ..... . . ..... .. 6 12 25 12

Hawaii . . ... . . .. . . ... . ... . . 12 4 42 1 Idaho .. . ........ . • .. • ••. . . 1 2 7 2 Montana . . .. . . .. . . . ... . .. . 2 9 Nevada ... . .. . .... . .... . . . 2 20 Oregon . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. 8 42 Washington:

8 Eastern .. .. .. .. . . .... Western . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. 177 195 72 188

Guam . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . 1 Northern Mariana

Islands . . . .. . .. . .. . ... . . .. Tenth Circuit .. . .. . . . . . . 132 46 739 197 267

Colorado . . . . .... . .. .. . .... 21 16 57 Kansas . • ••• •• •••••••• ' •••• • 132 11 673 44 236 Ne w Mexico .. . . . . . . .. . . ... . 3 8 Oklahoma:

Northern ..... . . .. .. .. . 6 12 29 Eastern . ..... . .. . . . . . . 7 1 Western . ........• •.. .. 37 16

Utah . . . .. . . . .... ....... .. 58 Wyoming .. . . .... ....... ... .1

doeke1 and ha 126 gI the Pa

Tt of ea1 flow I

t welVE for t ho transf Multi(

T to ofj State meth( ment auspi' Judie serie1 leveh 1977 ony-r

I fied ' tics , TablE 15,8 ~ lishe, base,

show and Tabl of tJ the D-3 for I

natt only by r levE

· Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 9, and Cumulative From September 1968

~ 'ulll ulullvl' I '::Ili8- \ '::I -;- ~

I\ HII I I' CIl!Ji lll! In

InlO \ Uut "' f Trtln~f(' r (, t '

Il lst riL' t LJi:-; l r lL'l lJ i,:; tr ic l

10:! 356 :!I

53 I. 11

23 69 11 18

7. 10 11 8

18 12 H

386 4 37 132

300 341 127 5 6

15 81 20

33 17

131 392 68

10 2

12 3 18

30 224

12 33 6 86 51 55

25 12

5

827 1,17 2 567

44 45 37

271 367 175

8 60 I

322 430 146

12 25 12

4 42 1

2 7 2 9

20 42

8 195 72 188

1

739 197 267

16 57 673 44 236

8

6 12 29

7 1 37 16

58 .1

263

dockets that have resulted in transfers under Section 1407 and have been completely closed. In addition, 1,003 actions in 126 groups of multidistrict lit igation have been docketed by the Panel but have not been centralized under 28 U.S.C. 1407.

The accompanying tables provide statistics on the number of cases transferred since the Panel was created, and the floW of cases into and out of individual districts for the twelve month period ending June 30, 1979, and cumulatively for the entire period since 1968. Information on specific cases transferred can be obtained by writing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Criminal WorkloadJn the U.S. District Courts

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts continues to offer statistical data that reflect the work of the United States district courts and is constantly seeking improved methods of presenting the data. The most current improvement in the detailed statistical tables had its origin under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Judicial Conference. The statistics appearing in the "D" series of the appendix tables now show separately all four levels of offenses, unlike the "D" series tables for 1976 and 1977 which showed only-two categories: "all cases" and "felony-misdemeanor" combined.

First time readers will find that the workload is identified by major offense categories and by offense level. Statistics on criminal cases and defendants appear in the Appendix Tables D-1 through D-10. The July 1, 1978 pending figure of 15,878 is 31 cases higher than the June 30, 1978 figure published last year due to minor adjustments in the criminal data base. •

Appendix Table D-1 Cases and Defendants, in addition to showing filings by offense level, also shows statistics on cases and defendants terminated and pending for the 95 districts. Table D-2 provides nationwide filings statistics on the nature of the proceeding which commenced the case, the nature of the major offense charged, and the level of offenses. Table D-3 includes cases and defendants commenced within district for all levels of offenses combined and by "felony" only level.

The D-4 table details the disposition of defendants by nature of offense for all levels combined and by "felony" level only. Table D-5 gives sentence data on defendants convicted by nature of .offense for all levels combined and for "felony" level only. Table D-7, a composite presentation of the D:"4

ariana estariel

Rectangle

U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION€¦ · report. Judge Lumbard advised the...

Documents

Transcript of U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION€¦ · report. Judge Lumbard advised the...