In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation
2011 WL 6355308
J.P.M.L.2011Background
- MDL No. 875 panel adopts Judge Robreno's suggestion to stop transferring new tag-along asbestos actions to the MDL after January 1, 2012, with stated exceptions and suspends Panel Rule 7.1(a).
- Historical centralization of asbestos claims began in 1991 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, recognizing the need for a streamlined MDL approach.
- Transferee judges work on a voluntary basis without extra compensation; Judge Robreno and predecessors are commended for extraordinary efforts.
- Judge Robreno's Suggestion reports backlog largely eliminated and about 400 new asbestos cases filed per year, with pending MDL cases under scheduling orders to be resolved by December 31, 2012.
- The Court acknowledges ongoing new filings but notes transferability should be limited to maintain efficiency and justice, subject to enumerated exceptions.
- Appendix A lists the specific jurisdictions and rationales for continuing tag-along transfers in limited circumstances; the Court severs punitive damages claims in remanded cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to discontinue future MDL-875 tag-along transfers. | Robreno advocated cessation to promote efficiency. | Panel should adopt cessation with narrow exceptions. | Yes; transfers terminated subject to exceptions. |
| Whether Panel Rule 7.1(a) should be suspended. | Suspension aligns with a reduced transfer framework. | Suspension necessary to implement exceptions. | Yes; Rule 7.1(a) suspended subject to exceptions. |
| Whether the enumerated exceptions justify continuing tag-along transfers in certain jurisdictions. | Some jurisdictions benefit from transfer and consolidation. | Limited exceptions preserve efficiency and justice in specific cases. | Exceptions apply; transfers continue only in listed jurisdictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F.Supp. 415 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (centralization warranted by magnitude of asbestos litigation)
- Willis v. BW IP Int’l Inc., 811 F.Supp.2d 1146 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (government contractor defense motions—summary judgment-like standard)
- Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 799 F.Supp.2d 455 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (maritime vs. land-based asbestos claims; proper law applications)
- Hagen v. Benjamin Foster Co., 739 F.Supp.2d 770 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) proper where facts entitle complete defense)
- 278 F.R.D. 126, 278 F.R.D. 126 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (administrative orders and related MDL rulings (non-WL/LEXIS source))