Case MDL No. 2654 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 20

Case MDL No. 2654 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 20 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION In re Amtrak Train Derailment in Philadelphia, PA, on May 12, 2015 MDL DOCKET NO.: _____ PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 FOR COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS Plaintiffs Blair Berman, Geralyn Ritter, Jonathan Ritter, Felicidad Iban, Daniel Armyn, Nicole Armyn, Amy Miller, Maria Iban, Mariana Estrades, Tom Stadnik, Jen Stadnik, Samantha Pincus, Catherine Greenman, James Greenman, Martin Burke, and Ann Moyer (together, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully filed this brief in support of their Motion an Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 transferring the cases listed in the attached Schedule of Actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Legrome Davis. I. Factual background All of the cases identified herein arise out of the derailment of Amtrak Regional Rail Train 188 on May 12, 2015 at approximately 9:23 p.m. The derailment occurred as the northbound train approached Frankford Junction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, several miles northeast of 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. The train was traveling over 100 miles an hour when the derailment occurred, although the track in the vicinity of Frankford Junction curves sharply and is subject to a 50 m.p.h. speed limit. Of the 238 passengers and 5 crew members on board, 8 were killed as a result of the derailment. Over 200 people were injured, many critically. 1 Case MDL No. 2654 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 20 At this time, 19 civil actions arising from the derailment have been filed by 42 plaintiffs in four federal district courts – the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (New cases are being filed regularly.) All of these actions involve the same nucleus of fact. All seek compensation for personal injuries suffered in the derailment. All are at a preliminary stage. The defendant National Railroad Passenger Corp. (known as “Amtrak”) has only filed a responsive pleading in one case, Seidler et al. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. As set forth below, 13 of the 19 actions were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the derailment occurred. All 12 actions have been assigned to Judge Legrome Davis, one of the Eastern District’s most experienced active judges. District of New Jersey: • Pellett v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 3:15-cv-03792-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.) (assigned to Judge Michael Shipp) Eastern District of New York: • Shevchuk v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 1:15-cv-3137-SJ-SMG (E.D.N.Y.) (assigned to Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr.) Southern District of New York: • Walsh v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 1:15-cv-3861-LAP (S.D.N.Y.) (assigned to Judge Loretta Preska) • Seidler v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 1:15-cv-4068-LAP (S.D.N.Y.) (assigned to Judge Loretta Preska) • John v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 1:15-cv-4255-JFK (S.D.N.Y.) (assigned to Judge John Keenan) • Kulp v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 1:15-cv-4791-AT (S.D.N.Y.) (assigned to Judge Analisa Torres) 2 Case MDL No. 2654 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 20 Eastern District of Pennsylvania: • Berman v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-02741-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Iban v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-02744-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Piccirillo v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-02762-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Phillips v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-02694-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Knobbs v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-02845-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Tulk v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-02849-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Beddoe v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-02861-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Gasper v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-03143-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • MacFarland v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-03342-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • McCann v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-03259-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Ziglar v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-03346-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Ritter v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-3478-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) • Stadnik v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 2:15-cv-3495-LDD (E.D.Pa.) (assigned to Judge Legrome Davis) II. Legal Argument Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, all of these actions should be transferred to a single district court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before the same district judge. 3 Case MDL No. 2654 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 20 Creation of an MDL will promote the just and efficient conduct of all such actions. As noted above, the actions arise from the same occurrence. They will involve the same factual and legal issues in advance of trial. They will involve the same discovery. In this context, an MDL proceeding will promote coordinated discovery, reduce the costs of litigation, and enable cases to proceed more efficiently to trial. An MDL also will conserve judicial resources by enabling one judge to manage common issues, thus avoiding the necessity for multiple district judges to address identical legal issues while preventing duplicative or conflicting pretrial rulings. See In re Union Pacific R.R. Co. Empl. Practices Litig., 314 F. Supp.2d 1338, 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2004) (centralization helps to conserve judicial resources); In re Charlotte Russe, Inc., Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 505 F. Supp.2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2007) (creation of an MDL proceeding helps to prevent inconsistent trial rulings). Additional considerations support the formation of an MDL to coordinate litigation related to the May 12 derailment. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 imposes a liability of $200 million on the aggregate allowable award to all rail passengers, against all defendants, including claims of punitive damages, arising from a single accident relating to rail passenger transportation. See 49 U.S.C. § 28103. The aggregate damages in litigation related to the derailment may exceed $200 million, in which case coordinated supervision by one judge would be essential. The Panel should transfer all of these actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in particular. In selecting a particular transferee court under Section 1407, the Panel considers several factors, including “where the largest number of cases is pending, where discovery has occurred, where cases have progressed furthest, the site of the occurrence of common facts, where the cost and inconvenience will be minimized, and the experience, skill, and caseloads of 4 Case MDL No. 2654 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 20 available judges.” MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (FOURTH) § 20.131 (2010). These factors strongly favor transfer of actions relating to the May 12 derailment to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, given the following considerations: • The derailment occurred in the heart of Philadelphia, in the Port Richmond neighborhood, only a few miles from the federal courthouse. The critical events and actions leading up to the derailment also occurred in Philadelphia, in the stretch of track between 30th Street Station and the Frankford Junction. • All of the deaths occurred in Philadelphia. All of the injuries occurred in Philadelphia. The vast amount of the emergency medical treatment was rendered in Philadelphia. Many of the medical witnesses and first responders are from Philadelphia, and millions of dollars in medical bills were incurred in Philadelphia. • Therefore, discovery will concentrate substantially on events that occurred in Philadelphia. • A clear majority of the federal cases arising from the derailment (11 of 16) have been filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It is anticipated that many more cases will be filed in the Eastern District of Philadelphia. • Motions for Entry of Protective Order have been filed in three of the cases pending in Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The issues raised in these motions regarding preservation and production of evidence, and Judge Davis’s decisions regarding same, will be applicable to every other case relating to the derailment. As a consequence, a MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will conserve judicial resources, and will prevent conflicting orders in other courts. 5 Case MDL No. 2654 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/15 Page 6 of 20 • The locomotive and train cars involved in the derailment, which are included in the Motions for Entry of Protective Order noted above, are being stored by Amtrak in Wilmington and Bear, Delaware, respectively, and therefore are significantly closer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania than any other federal district court where actions are currently pending. • Amtrak has a major office in Philadelphia, and Philadelphia is convenient for Amtrak witnesses who may need to travel from Amtrak’s main office located in Washington D.C. Amtrak’s Engineering offices in Philadelphia have responsibility for the maintenance of the tracks at issue and related infrastructure.

Load more