Wm. Terrell Hodges, U.S.D.J.
Now before the Panel is a motion brought, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, by defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. in one Western District of Kentucky action ( Triplett). Movant requests the Panel to transfer Triplett to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the centralized pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket before Judge Charles R. Weiner. Plaintiff in Triplett opposes transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Triplett involves involve common questions of fact with actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and that transfer of the action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring in that district will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. We find that transfer of Triplett is appropriate for reasons expressed by the Panel in its original decision in this docket directing centralization of all pending federal court actions not then in trial involving allegations of personal injury or wrongful death caused by asbestos or asbestos containing products. See In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415 (J.P.M.L. 1991). In particular, we note that in the Panel's original decision distinctions based on such matters as the pendency of motions or other matters before the transferor court, the uniqueness of a party's status, the type of defendant, the docket condition of any specific federal district, the stage of pretrial proceedings, the presence of unique claims or additional claims not relating to asbestos injury or death, and/or the unanimity of opposition to transfer by the parties to an action, were considered and rejected by' the Panel as grounds for carving out exceptions to transfer in this extraordinary docket.
We are not persuaded to depart from this approach in dealing with the question of transfer of the actions now before the Panel. We note that under Judge Weiner's stewardship, as of February 1, 2002, i) over 71,000 actions have been closed in the transferee district, and ii) over 1100 actions or claims therein have been returned to their originating transferor districts. For any parties in this docket that believe the uniqueness of their particular situation renders continued inclusion of their action in MDL-875 unnecessary or inadvisable, we note that whenever the transferee judge deems remand of any claims or actions appropriate, procedures are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. at 436-38. We are confident that Judge Weiner will continue to promptly review arguments for returning transferred actions or claims to their transferor courts and will take all appropriate steps to assure their speedy return whenever he is convinced that retention in the MDL-875 proceedings is no longer needed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Marilyn E. Triplett, etc. v. Minnesota Mining Manufacturing Co., W.D. Kentucky, C.A. No. 3:01-11, is transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Weiner for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.