Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-OO353—Gl\/IS Document 27 Filed O9/O3/2008 Paget of 2
ELZUFON AUSTIN REARDON
TARLOV & MON DELL, P.A. AT1"ORNEYS&COUNsELORS AT LAW
IOHN A. ELzUFoN CHRISTIAN G. MCGARRY 300 DELAWARE AVENUE
JEFFREY M. AUSTIN MATTHEW P. DoNELsoN SUITE 1700, P.O. Box 1630
MARK L. REARDoN ----------—--·-------------------- WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, 19899-1630
EDWARD A. TARLOV BARBARA SNA1=I> DANBERc; PHoNE: 302.428.3181
SCOTT R. MONDELL GARY W. ALDERsoN FACSIMILE: 302.428.3180
H. GARRETT BAKER ANDREA C. RoDcERs INTERNET: WWW.ELZUFON.COM
ROBERT H. RICHTER DEBoRAH ]. GALONSKY WRITERS E-MAH.: [email protected]
COLLEEN D. SHIELDS PENELOPE B. O'CONNELL
]oEL M. DoNER KRISTA REALE SAMrs
ROGER L. TRUEMPER ANDREW]. CARMINE
SCOTT A. SIMPSON PETER S. MURPHY
SENIOR CoUNsEL:
FRANCIS]. TRzUsKowsI<1
JAMES F. Krrr
September 3, 2008
VIA E-FILIN G AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Room 43 24
Lockbox 19
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Frederick Seitz and Mary Louise Seitz v. Adel Wiggins Group, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case N0. 08-CV-0353 GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
We, along with DLA Piper LLP (US), represent Northrop Grumman Corporation
("Northr0p Grumman") in the above—captioned case and submit this letter opposing Plaintiffs’
request for an expedited ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.
Regardless of the extension granted by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL Panel") for Plaintiffs to file its Motion to Vacate the Conditional Transfer Order, this
Court has the authority to pennit the transfer of cases in which motions to remand are pending.
Moreover, once transferred, the MDL Panel can and often does resolve motions to remand.
Indeed, courts have recognized that motions to remand should be decided by the MDL court in
order to avoid inconsistent results in similarly situated cases. Plaintiffs have not identified any
reason why the Eastem District of Pennsylvania is not capable of deciding the jurisdictional
issues presented in the pending motion to remand. To the contrary, the MDL judge is certain to
be very knowledgeable on issues relating to asbestos exposure and the range of jurisdictional
issues raised by Plaintiffs.
Although Northrop Grumman is sympathetic to Mr. Seitz’s condition, the hallmark of
this litigation to date has been for plaintiffs to delay filings and seek extensions of time, followed
Wilmington, Delaware Cb Boothwyn, Pennsylvania G3 Bear, Delaware d>I.iewes, Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-OO353—GI\/IS Document 27 Filed O9/O3/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Seitz v. Adel I/Wggins Group, etal.
September 3, 2008
Page 2
in close order by plaintiff asking a Court that does not have the obligation to do so to interrupt its
docket, deny defendant’s right to fully prepare a response, and expedite a ruling.
In an attempt to persuade your Honor to expedite this matter, Plaintiffs cite Mr. Seitz’s
illness as reason to remand the case to state court. Mr. Seitz was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in March 2008, at which point doctors informed him that he had approximately six months to
live. \Vhile Plaintiffs now rely on Mr. Seitz’s illness as reason for remand, they have been less
than efficient in the filing of their pleadings in this matter. Northrop Grumman filed its notice of
removal on June 12, 2008, and sought transfer of the case to the MDL at that time. Plaintiffs
waited seven weeks to file their Motion to Remand. It has been approximately six months since
Mr. Seitz was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Remanding the case to state court at this point will
not expedite matters sufficiently. Indeed, when this case was still venued in state court, it was
scheduled for a September 23, 2009, trial — over one year from now.
Finally, Mr. Seitz’s illness is not reason to avoid transfer of this case to the MDL.
Numerous cases currently in MDL-875 involve plaintiffs who suffer from mesothelioma and
other fatal illnesses allegedly resulting from asbestos exposure. Plaintiffs illness is not reason
for Northrop Grumman to be stripped of its legal rights in this matter — to be fully heard on its
opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and, if proper, to have this case transferred to the
MDL.
Based on the above, Northrop Grumman Corporation respectfully requests that this Court
deny Plaintiffs’ request for an expedited ruling and allow Northrop Grumman the opportunity for
oral argument in this matter or the matter to be transferred to the MDL for further rulings.
Very truly yours,
C I?
FENELOPE §i’(g’CONNELL
cc: All Counsel of Record (Via E-file and U.S. Mail) .
Nancy Shane Rappaport, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00353-GMS

Document 27

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00353-GMS

Document 27

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 2 of 2