Astrium, S.A.S. v. TRW, Inc.

Good Law
254 F. Supp. 2d 1129·2003 WL 1733656·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10068
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 2003SACV001169DOCMLGXCalifornia5,356 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carter, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ TRW, CORNING NETOPTIX, OFC CORPORATION, AND OPTICAL FILTER CORPORATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ FRAUD CLAIMS, BASED ON RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT’S SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 ORDER.

Before the Court is Defendant TRW’s motion for partial reconsideration and Defendants Corning Netoptix, OFC Corporation, and Optical Filter Corporation’s motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s September 23, 2002 Order. In its September 23 Order, the Court denied Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff Astrium’s fraud claims. Based on a recent change in law, Defendants ask the Court to reverse its holding, thereby granting the motions for summary judgment on Astrium’s fraud claims. The motion is based on the recent decision of the California Court of Appeals, titled Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 105 Cal.App.4th 749 , 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 (2003). After careful consideration of the moving, opposing, and replying papers, oral argument on February 24, 2003, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions.

As a preliminary matter, Astrium requests this Court take judicial notice of the full briefs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.