Younan et al v. Rolls-Royce Corporation

Plaintiff: Dalour Younan, Chad Hessenflow, Nancy Ruth Bell and Vicki Hessenflow
Defendant: Rolls-Royce Corporation
Case Number: 3:2009cv02136
Filed: September 29, 2009
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Referring Judge: Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Presiding Judge: William Q. Hayes
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
May 22, 2013 228 Opinion or Order of the Court 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)
May 7, 2013 205 Opinion or Order of the Court 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)
October 26, 2012 156 Opinion or Order of the Court 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)
June 6, 2012 131 Opinion or Order of the Court 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)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Younan et al v. Rolls-Royce Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dalour Younan
Represented By: James F Pokorny
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chad Hessenflow
Represented By: James F Pokorny
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nancy Ruth Bell
Represented By: James F Pokorny
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Vicki Hessenflow
Represented By: James F Pokorny
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rolls-Royce Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?