Younan et al v. Rolls-Royce Corporation
| Dalour Younan, Chad Hessenflow, Nancy Ruth Bell and Vicki Hessenflow |
| Rolls-Royce Corporation |
| 3:2009cv02136 |
| September 29, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Cathy Ann Bencivengo |
| William Q. Hayes |
| Plaintiff |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
228
ORDER (Re Doc. 163 ): The motion in limine to exclude evidence of a duty to warn arising under 14 C.F.R. Section 21.3(b) is DENIED. No later than 5/28/2013, the parties shall file any new jury instruction(s) proposed in light of the ruling in this Order. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/22/2013. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
205
ORDER: The Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Negligence of Rolls-Royce and Boeing is denied without prejudice to object to any specific evidence at trial. (Doc. 161 ). The Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference at Trial to Alleged Negligence by and/or Apportionment of Fault to Customs and Border Patrol and Office of Air and Marine is denied without prejudice to object to any specific evidence at trial. (Doc. 162 ). The motion in limine to preclude Plaintiffs from arguing that MDHI had a d uty to warn arising under state common law is granted. (Doc. 163 ). The motion in limine to preclude Plaintiffs from arguing that MDHI had a duty to warn arising under 14 C.F.R. Sections 21.3(a) and/or 21.3(f) is granted. Plaintiffs' request fo r attorney's fees incurred in responding to this motion in limine is denied. No later than seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed, MDHI may file a supplemental reply brief limited to responding to Plaintiffs' argument concerning t he applicability of 14 C.F.R. Section 21.3(b). The Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of or Reference to Other Accidents is denied without prejudice to object to specific evidence at trial. (Doc. 164 ). The Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of or Reference to Expansion of MD600N Flight Envelope is granted without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving for the admission of the evidence outside the presence of the jury for a permissible purpose. (Doc. 165 ). The Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of or Reference to Department of Labor's Adjustment After Recovery from a Third Party is granted. (Doc. 166 ). The Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of or Reference to the Crosby Letter is granted without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving for the admission of the Crosby letter outside the presence of the jury for a permissible purpose. (Doc. 167 ). The Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to MDHI as "McDonnell Douglas" is denied as moot. (Doc. 168 ). The Motion to Exclude Tes timony of Donald E. Sommer Regarding Helicopter Flight Training is granted without prejudice to Plaintiffs proferring a sufficient foundation for Sommer's challenged opinions outside the presence of the jury. (Doc. 169 ). The Motion to Exclude Testimony of William Lawrence Regarding (1) Missing Instructions or Warnings, and (2) Causation is denied without prejudice to renew at trial with respect to specific testimony. (Doc. 170 ). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/7/2013. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER: The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant MD Helicopters, Inc. (Doc. 142 ) is DENIED. The Application to Set Oral Argument on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant MD Helicopters, Inc. (Doc. 150 ) is DENIED. The final pretrial conference is set for 1/11/2013, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/26/2012. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER: The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant MDHI (Doc. 76 ) is denied as to Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action for negligent training and failure to warn, and granted as to Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action for strict liability. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/6/2012. (mdc)(jrd)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
