## Facts

- Tens of thousands of federal actions alleged personal injury or wrongful death from asbestos exposure; nearly 31,000 such actions were pending as of March 31, 1991.
- The JPML issued an order to show cause why all pending federal asbestos personal-injury and wrongful-death actions not then in trial should not be centralized under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- Service of the order brought parties in 26,639 actions across 87 federal districts within the proceeding.
- Over 180 pleadings were filed and 37 counsel argued at a four-hour hearing.
- A large group of plaintiffs and a smaller set of major defendants supported centralization; many other plaintiffs and hundreds of defendants opposed it.
- The JPML had denied nationwide centralization of asbestos personal-injury actions multiple times since 1977, when the docket was smaller and many cases were more advanced.

## Issues

1. Whether asbestos personal-injury and wrongful-death actions pending in federal courts share sufficient common questions of fact to warrant transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
2. Whether centralized pretrial proceedings would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.
3. If centralization was warranted, which transferee district and judge should be selected.

## Decision

- The JPML ordered centralization of the covered federal asbestos personal-injury and wrongful-death actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- The Panel selected the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the transferee district and established MDL No. 875 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
- The Panel found centralization necessary to reduce duplicative discovery, minimize inconsistent pretrial rulings, and manage recurring issues across an extraordinary number of cases.
- Actions not effectively served with the show-cause order were treated as potential tag-along actions under the Panel’s procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is appropriate when actions share common questions of fact and centralization will further convenience and the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- Mass tort actions may warrant nationwide centralization where repeated discovery and motion practice on common factual matters would otherwise occur across many districts.
- The § 1407 determination is context-dependent; prior denials of centralization do not bar centralization when later circumstances—such as case volume and nationwide dispersion—materially change.
- Selection of a transferee forum may consider litigation management needs, the distribution of party preferences, and the relative suitability of the district to coordinate common pretrial proceedings.

## Conclusion

The JPML centralized most federal asbestos personal-injury and wrongful-death cases not then in trial into MDL 875 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, concluding that the scale of the litigation and recurring common factual questions required coordinated pretrial management to reduce duplication and inconsistency.


In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415 (J.P.M.L. 1991)