ML19207C028

Forwards Complaints Filed in Actions Arising from TMI Incident

ML19207C028
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	08/29/1979
From:	Carrier W AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS
To:	Saltzman J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7909060328
Download: ML19207C028 (16)

Text

.

V-N

\\v CFFtG CF THE GENERAL CC?iEL csecn 'A2'O e

__/

1

, se esce~ rc3=e; ce 1

~

ru v

BURT C.PROOM.CPCU Pressdent August 29, 1979 Mr. Jeroma Saltzrran Deputy Chief Office of Antitrust & Indemnity Directorate of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash ington, D.C.

20555 Re: Three Mile Island Litigation

Dear Jerry:

I enclose copies of recent complaints filed in actions arising out of the captioned accident.

1.

Chester Radnor et. al. versus Metropolitan Edison et. al.

United States District Court -- Middle District #79-1018 2.

Jankovic et. al. versus Metropolitan Edison et. al.

United States District Court -- Middle District #79-994 Yours,very truly,

)'$.C.'c n:cc c n '

'Rilliam C. Carrier Claims Counsel WCC/pbs Enclosures Ol iOl8 0

7909060 0 3

.,- l

= 8, m x

- 7...

j.

=

+

Csw *-

fv 3

>r = n.c.r w.

a..,..,

duMMCess IN A ClygL. ACTION.

as new lintich 9tates Bistrirt Gaurt FOR THE' srrree grq?, tea er ve viviv 4vT.a.

Civ!L ACTION FILE No. 7C 10* F f

4)G 2 3 1319 L.

A SA NC hantf and 'iffe, W. C. M Individually and as Parents and Guardians cf STT'ITN 'AEFO % F I"'* LF 4ADiC 3,

a n d f u CS"'"

7ACNC 2,.

~IC v inors,

PlaintiT SIDDIONS v.

PET':0?OCITAF TDISCU rCP PA'.'Y, EASFCcK + WIT.TX m F ATf,

.i..' A? ' ~ c T = *

• c """ 4 ~rv?.cri,

'tr.,

Grvr'A!. ?U"LT' "T*!'T'TS,

.ms:v m?: AL Fr/U;' Ayr. LIG'c cr' F.*.3Y, a.9 FATALYT**, "'~.,

Defendant To the above named Defc

,_a_

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon

'o b n. '. C' M an. J a., Tsc vi t-p!amti.fi attorney, whose addre. " ATN

. nh....'5,. n S h r. i c n 1 xci

t i l d ' e Phf Li elr * * *

?q. 94103 d

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon ytu, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, e.telusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by defacit will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

_.T_7.AL,0,,$,, 3,5j f g,,,,,, _ _,,,,,,,,,,.

~

C;erk of Court.

,,r~?

Q'

~)

Deputy Ch r k.

Date:

A" o r s t v..

• rc

[ Seal of Court]

NOTE.-This samme-s is issued purseant to Rule 4 of the fedusi Rules of Gnl Procedure.

'T o'i r

D

. >.,e_41\\*9

('.

T'!clo 1

CJU t sr ti!

in

?

J 3}

ll O Il d.i0 b S t i LM !.L,

ll

.s l

1:

I i

l il.

9 i

a

{s I

C

8 IN TE IDII"'ID STAIES DISTRICT COURT FOR TE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 6:

1

[ CESTER RADNCR and CIVIL ACTICN i

ll LYDIA RE NCE, Husband and Wife, u Individually and as Parents h

i and G_ardians of q STEVEN RADNCR, MICELLE RADNCR f).T Q I. O i: and CHESTER RADN.CR, III. = crs Il 103 N. 26th St.

l2l Ca=p Hill, Pa. 17011 i

1 v.

JURY TRIAL DEPANDED F

ME"'RCPCLI'"AN EDISC'i CO.

i 2800 Pottsville Pike

'l Muhlenberg, Pa. 19605

{

and j

3A3CCCR & WILCCX CCt9 %iY I

161 E. 42nd Street l

New York, New York 10017 g

} [(c lyI"f i

and du '

J. RAY McDERMCTIT & COMPANY, ETC.

! IC10 Cen=cn Street SCEA# ^

l

}f ew Crleans, Louisiana 70112 N

'rM!G 10 1973 and DCNALD R. SERRY, C erk l

GENERAL PU3LIC UTILI'"IES a3.

j 260 Cherry Hill Road

~ j g, c.;G t

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 j

and JERSEY CIN"'RAL PCWPR EID LIGE CO.

Madison and Punchbewl Morris to.c2, New Jersey l

and L CA'"ALYTIC, ETC.

j 1500 Market Street l{l Centre Square West Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 No.

'c

!l COM:LC;T ET ""RESPASS 1.

The plaintiffs, Chester Radner, L dia Radnor and tveir f

o children, Steven Radnor, Michelle Radner and Chester ?adnor, III, are citizens of the Co==onwealth of Pennsylvania and rasida

'l, at 103 N. 26th Street, Ca:p Hill, Pa. 17011.

t!

l 1

,,, - (v ?.'

l\\

rt p,e mmm.w.

eaGup.

e.

-n e*

s 2.

(a) The defendant, :+=cro M iic d Liiio' Co > iS 4

Pennsylvania corporation doing -business wic..ia the CO.::enacalth of Pennsylvania with offices located at 2300 Pottsville Pike, Muhlenberg, Pa. 19605.

n (b) The defendant, 3abcock and Wilcox Co. is a New Jersey corporation with offices located at 161 E. 42nd Street, e

New York, New York, 10017.

(c) The defendant, J. Ray McDer=ott & Concany, Inc.,

1 l

is a Delaware corporation with offices located at 1010 Co==en Street, New Orleans, Lcuisia:.a 70112.

i I

(d) Tha defendant, General Public Utilities is a l

}

Pennsylvania Corporation with offices located at 260 Cher y l

Hill Road, Parshpany, New Jersey 07054 l

(e) The defendant, Jersey Central Peter and Light Co.,

i I

has officeslocated at Madison and Punchbcal, Mor-istown, New

,,l Jersey.

(f) The defendant, Catalytic, Inc. is a Pennsylvnnia l

corporation with offices located at 1500 Market Street, Centre Ilil Square West, Philadelphia, Pa. 19102, l.

3.

Jurisdiction is based upon 42 U.S.C.A. 2210 et seq. and 0'

the a=ouan in centroversy exceeds Ten mots and ($10,000.00) 3 Dollars.

l 4

Service of process upon the defendants hetein has been =ade pursuant to F.R.C.P. 4(e) and Title 42 of the d

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated, Sectiens 3322 and i

5323.

. v.s I

(

1 I

l.

i' i

[

5.

On er about March 28, 1979, the defendants, through their agents, servants and e:-ic,y as caused radioactive sub-l stances *o be e=itted into the enviren=ent, a fact which spokaspersen.' for the defandants acknowledged had occurred, l'

at the Three Mile IslanC telear Power Planc.

l l

6.

The a-#asicus of radiation into the environ =ent l

l neared such dangerous levels that Governor Thcrnburg for the i

Co onwealth of Pe=sylvania en March 30, 1979 ordered that all i

1 pre-school children and pregnant wo=en evacuate fran within five (5) =il'es of the Three Mile Islant Nuclear Plant.

.cwever, due to the uncertainty created by the conflicting state =ents Of 1

j the defendants' spokespersons and state, local and ca:icnal l

l gcVer=ent spokespersons regarding the dangers of the radiation

~~-

I eposure, the plaintiffs felt ec=pelled to evacuate the area i

for their own safety.

7.

The defendants all contributed to the const:mtion,

=ainta" ce and operatics of the Three Mile Island Nuclear j

Pcwer Plant and its ec=ponent parts.

i 8.

The da= ages sustained by the plaintiffs uere caused l

by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, willf.r.lness and wanto=ess of the defendan:s:

(a) in failing to properly design the said nuclear i

il m

j; pcwer plant (Three Mile Island) and its cc=conent parts; it

]

(b) in failing to properly constrm : the said nuclea:"

l

] power plant and its cc=penent parts;

.:ii

[

(c) in failing to properly inspec: and test the said 1

nuclear power plant and its cc=ponen: parts;

! ~

. y so f^*

4

\\,.s'*

n f.w

• i f

.~

r s.

_. -..-~3.-.-

(d) in using faul:y and def active conpenan: ::erials in the construction of the said nuclear pcuer plant; (e) in exposing the public to such a defective power plant; l.

I (f) in failing to warn the plaintiffs of the defects i

in said nuclear power plant; i

(g) in failing to exercise due ca e in the engineering, i

ec= position, design, construction and operation of said nuclear I

power plant; t

i l

(h) in failing to exercise the high standard of care il' i

required in the operation of a ultrahazardous activity (i.e.

a nuclear power plant).

9.

Defendants knew or in the exercise of ord'-'"7 care l'

had reason to know of the dangerous effects of its nuclear power plant.

1 10.

The said nuc2 ear power plant and its co=ponent i

.I cc=cositional parts were under the sole and exclusive passession 4i'

] and con: ol of the defendants, while it was being en;;ineered, I

co= posed, designed, constructed and opera:ed.

i' 4

11.

Defendants operated said naclear power plant and its conponent parts in a defective condition unreasonably dangercus

[. to the plaintiffs and their property, and harn was thereby u

o' caused to he plaintiffs.

i 1

12.

The defendants are engaged in the business of I

designing, =anufacturin;;, constr.:cting and selling of :he cca-

,o ponent parts of the said Three Mile Island St. clear Pcwer Plan:

si

.t

- s' -

U 9

y 7 3 y

g, q r.

,a n

. ~, rv e-

,p t

4, J L

i i,

si ita g

i!

o I

[ and those co=ponent parts were expected to and did reach the fi. nuclear pcwer plan: without substantial change, in the condition I

in which they were designed, =anufactured, constructed and sold.

4 I

13.

The defendants in con-tructing and operating a l'

[ nuclear power plant and its co=ponent parts in such a defective 11 4 condition as to be u= reasonably dangerous to cons"--s, violated i

,! the standards of Section 402A of the Restate-ent of Torts (II).

l l

14.

As a result of the foregoing, -he plaintiffs' ho=e and their proper:7 have decreased in value and the plaintiff have also suffered econe=ic ha::: including but not linited to l

loss of incere and. ravel and living expenses while evacuees.

i l

i 15.

Further, the plaintiffs, due to the exposure to 4

radioactive =aterials e=itted froci the defendants' nuclear i

1 l

power plant had suffered physical and e=otional injuries and

{

will contir 2 to do so for an indefinite period.

t i

l 16.

In the future the plaintiffs will need to undergo i

l

=edical er # 1tions on a periodic basis to detet=ine the full iil extent of their injuries as a result of the defendants'

.i d.; negligent and wrongful conduct. The need and expense for these e

dh en ' nations will exist for a =i-*

of twenty (20) years.

-i i.

(

17.

Due to 2e extraordinary negligence on the parr of ti d9 the defendants in view of the potential risk that a nuclear pcwer plant pr sesses, plaintiffs also de=and that puni:ive l'

H da= ages be awarded in their favor.

y 13.

Further, the plaintiffs decand a trial 57.Tury en i

all issues of this actien.

l P

J

.I s

-f_

,'d j.A' 'ee'?

ga

. ?.s I

t:

e

j; n._

..___f.

• EIIRIFORI, jud ;:en:i is. da= cad d joi.tif ct.d sa carally agains: tha dafendants by the plaintiffs for econo:ic losses and physical and ecotional injuries in n a cun: in excess

!! of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars e. well as punitive da= ages l'

in an a=ount in excess of Ten Thousanu ($10,000.00) Collars.

e s

.\\m

• n

\\

/

f l

John ~J.

C'Brien, Jr.

(J

[

Richard F.IRosen Jo$nJ.O'Epien,III j

Attorneys for Plaintiffs i

a N

ili i

i I

it i

t I

!I N

n f

i I'

i I

5 6

II e l:

'g';,1.dO 2 6

• c l.

P00ft Oill8iK

a. -

(

~

1. jG 271373 W. C. CARRIER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTAICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH JMIKCVIC and CIVIL ACTION NO.79-994 ELLEN JANKCVIC, Individually and as Husband and Wife; and

.. {j

.t.2 S DIANE LADIKA, Individually ar.l

- #" ". '.; 7.,

as Parent and Natural Guardian 4.,.g of CHRISTOPHER LADIKA and N'.. q TALIA DOLO, Minors

,3fA.'

Plaintiffs

.a v.

CIVIL ACTION

• g('J,'

METROPOLITAN EDISCN CO.,

BASCCCK & WILCCX CCMPAN't, J.

RAY McDERMOTT & CCMPANY, INC.,

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES, JERSEY CENTRAL PCWER AND LIGHT CO. and CATALYTIC, INC.

Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMM;DED Lf A, I ) '.#. w I,0

.:'T

...i'. l, * ?

/h(T f.T ' "~ ~~...

..~.7,2:

• z

~g

-~~:'

--- ~ ~

s.

-...-g.

+..,e a.

.w ANS*4ER O? GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.,

METRCPCLITAN EDISON COMPANY, AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGh'" COM.PANY TO COMPLAINT Defendants, General Public Utilities Corp. ("GPU"),

Metropolitan Edison Company (" Meted") and Jersey Central Power & Light Company (" Jersey Central"), by their attorneys,

~

answer the Ccmplaint as follous:

1.

Answering defendants are witnout knowledge c:

informatten sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 1.

2.

Ad. tit the averments of Subparagraphs (a) through (f) of Paragraph 2.

3.

Deny that jurisdiction may be based upon 28 U.S.C.

S2210, except admit that plaintiff's action is an action " arising under" federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

$1337. Answering defendants are without knowledge or info: nation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 3.

4.

Admit that Jersey Central and GPU have been served in the manner authori=ed by the cited rule and statutes, and deny that said service was proper on Meted. Anuwering defendants are without knowledge or infor=ation sufdicient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 4 concerning the other defendants.

5.

Deny each and even ave =ent of Paragraph 5 as to the answering defendants. As to the other defendants, no answer is required.

2

• <,, - \\ g. s.

j s.9.F.it >.w S

~~:

" T*

':lk

.f

=:

[

- ~ * - -

6.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 6 as to the answering defendants, except admit that the Governor of Pennsylvania recommended that certain categories of persons living within five miles of Three Mile Island temporarily leave their homes for a point more than five miles away from Three Mile Island. As to the other defendants, no answer is required.

7.

Deny each and every aver =ent of Paragraph 7 as to the answering defendanta except admit that Catalytic furnished certain maintenance serv. ices at the direction and request c_ Meted and C?U pursuant to a certain contract between Catalytic and Meted relating to the Three Mile Island facility and Babcock & Wilcox participated in the design and construction of the nuclear reactor and steam generators at Three Mile Island Unit No.

2, though not the entire facility, and Meted provided operators for Three Mile Island Unit No.

2.

As to the other defendants, no answer is required.

8.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 3 as to the answering defendants. As to the other defendants, no answer is required.

9.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 9 as to the answering defendants. As to the other defendants, no answer is required.

10.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 10 as to the answering defendants. As to the other defendants, no answer is required.

11.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph Il as to the answering defendants, except admit that Meted 4 [ B 96*

.. p.

.-q m

s,i

,e.,,,.

~.-

3

., ap 1g

z

.. e,m

-r a...

..y lll.-

operated Three Mile Island No. 2 but deny that its operations were unreascnably dangerous or resulted in harm to third parties. As to the other defendants, no answer is required.

12.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 1.:

as to the answering defendants. As to the other defendanta,

no answer is required.

13.

Deny each and every ave =ent of Paragraph 13 as to the answering defendants. As to the other defi'ndants, no answer is required.

14.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 14.

15.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 15.

16.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 16.

17.

Deny each and every averment of Paragraph 17.

18.

No answer is required.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFE'SE 19.

The Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRtATI*Td DEFEtISE 20.

Any award of punitive damages in this case would violate federal policy as declared in the Price-Anderson Act amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 52201 et seq., especially 42 U.S.C.

S2210.

h"dEEEFCRE, answering defendants demand that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that they be

-4 a > s;b's).. q 0

6.

a

' 3,1, R'g<-

n.y. :

v-,.:-

r

m. _

'f:;ir

':-w;.-

'r M,.7.

.~:* ~"

2,- -

y 4. _

[f

' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, August 21, 1379, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing Answer were served by United States Mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsyl'rania, addressed to John J. O'Brien, Jr.,

1250 Suburban Station Building, 1617 J. F.

F.ennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Jameson &

Milspaw, 100 Chestnut Street, Suite 206, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101; Mandell K. Shar en, P. O. Box 249, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013; Hepford, ::fr:=erman & Swartz, 111 North Front Street, P.

O..

Box 889, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109; Bailey & Broder, 350 5t.t Avenue, New York, New York 10001; Barry A. Roth, 120 South Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101; Handler & Ueiner, Suite 1005, 240 North Third Street, Payne-Shoemaker Building, P. O. Box 1177, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108; Meisenhelder & Associates, 11 East Market Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401; Stock & Leader, 35 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401; Krank, Gross & Casper, 333 Park City Center, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601; David Berger, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Beasley, Howson & Casey, 21 South 12th Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; Barrack, Rodos & McMahen, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Cohen, Sha piro, Polisher, Shiekman & Cohen, PSFS Building, 22nd Floor, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin

& Creskoff, Rohm & Haas Building, 2nd Floor, 6th and Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, attorneys for plaintiffs.

PEPPER, HAMILTCN & SCHEETZ BY-t

.?-

FPID SPEAXE.T 10 South Market Square P.

O.

Box 1181 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 (717) 233-8483 JOHN G.

HARKI::S, JR.

EDWARD W. MADEIRA, JR.

A.

H. WILCOX 2001 The Fidelity Building 123 South Broad street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' 19103 (215) 893-3000 i,u s : 6 \\ ',.')

6a '

.oD

.o

.rg--

% 7:

l[;.

- - =,

.~5

.~

'r JERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, August 21, 1979, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing Answer were srrved by United States Mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to John J. O' Brien, Jr.,1250 Suburban Station Building, 1617 J. P.

Kennedy Boulevard, Pniladelphia, Pennsylvania 19103: Jameson &

Milspaw, 100 Chestnut Street, suite 206, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101; Mandell K. Shanken, P. O. Box 249, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013; Hepford, ::1==er=an & Swartz, 111 North Front Street, P. O..

Box 889, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109; Bailey & Breder, 350 5th Avenue, New York, New York 10001; Barry A. Roth, 120 South Stre.et, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101; Handler & Ueiner, Suite 1005, 240 North Third Street, Payne-Shoemaker Building, P. O. Box 1177, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108; Meisenhelder & Associates,11. East Mai:et Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401; Stock & Leader, 35 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania 17401; Yeank, Gross & Casper, 338 Park City Center, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601; David Berger, 1622 Locust Streeh, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Beasley, Hewson & Casey, 21 South 12th Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; Barrack, Rodos & McMahon, 2000 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shickman & Cohen, PSFS E 'lding, 22nd Floor, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvar 19107 and Adler, Earish, Daniels, Levin

& Creskoff, Rohm & Haas elding, 2nd Floor, 6th and Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, attorneys for plaintiffs.

PEPPER, HAMILTON & SCHEET*

PIs.,

BY:

e FRED SPsAKEh*

10 South Market Square P.

O.

Box 1181 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103 (717) 233-8483 JCHN G. H.ARICIS, JR.

EDWARD W. MAZEIT.A, JR.

A.

H.

WILCOX 2001 The Fidelity Building 123 Scuth Broad Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvanic 19109 (215) 893-2000

$18I.

=.

c-.

+

(

IN THE C';ITED STATES DISTRICT CCURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: THREE MILE ISLAND CIVIL ACTICN NO.79-432 LITICATION AND CIVIL ACTICN NO.79-994 JANKOVIC, et al.

v.

METRCPOLITAN EDISCN CO., et al. :

ORDER AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 1979, IT IS HEREBY CROERED that Civil Action No.79-994 is generally consolidated for pretrial and trial purposes with Civil Action No.79-432 because Plaintiff (s) in Civil Action No.79-994 have not filed a motion opposing such general consolidation with Civil Action No.79-432, as directed by the Order of Augus c 7, 1979 in the event that they so wished to cppose such general consolidation.'

HJ l?r;tKl /

"Jonn Havas Unite'd States Magistrate Dated: August 20, 1979.

. f 3".'

l

--E. ; 73 T.

• f) Ye 1

• • n

,.__.s

_}'

N y,e

,o

_. _... _, ~..

f

'N THE UNI"2D STATES DIST' IT COURT

?..t THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PiNNSYLVANIA IN RE: THREE MILE ISLAND CIVIL ACTION No.79-432 LITIGATION AND

- CIVIL ACTION NO. 79-1018 CHESTER RADNCR, et al.

V.

I MdTf.0POLITAN EDISCN CO., et al.

C 5) c*

f ~

~,$. P>t.

M, - u s.

CRDER ins LD $$

w. ~y C K 4

twe...<-

ND NOW, this 20th Cay of August, 1979, IT IS HERE3Y CROERED that :

1.

If Plaintiff (s) in Civil Action No. 79-1018 wish to oppose general censolidation for pretrial and trial purposes pursuant to F.R.C.P.

h2 they =ay do so by filing a motion to oppose general censolidation, together with a brief thereon, within ten (10) days of receipt of this order. Failure to file a timely motion and brief shall result in the issuance of an crder o. general consolidation. If Defendants wish to oppor su h a nction not to generally censolidate ' hey shall file an opposing trief within fifteen (15) days of the filing of Plaintiff (s)' brief; and 2.

If during the course of this litigation Plaintiff (s) at Civil Action No. 79-1013 wish to specially oppose either pretrial or trial consolidation en a particular legal or factual issue or aspect of this litigation they shall raise such a special opposition to consolidation by filing a notion, concurrent with a brief thereon. If Defendants wish to oppose such a special action not to conso]idate they shal' file an opposing brief thereto within fifteen (15) days of the filing of Plaintiff (s)'

noticn and brief-

)I'

//'

y' f, !*

• l l p;, -

J;nn.iavas,

v.

s.

>.ag strace

/

Cated:

Augus.

20, 1979.

/

/

/

/

L

[g 'j f

gy A. < 3 5 ) J i #

_..--