Carpenter

Carpenter v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.

Good Law
101 F. Supp. 3d 911·2015 WL 1893146·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54946
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 27, 2015Case No. LA CV14-07793 JAK (AJWx)California7,499 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kronstadt, J.

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS BAE SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 16); DEFENDANT PROTOTYPE ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND JOINDER TO BAE SYSTEMS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 18); and DEFENDANTS SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, ET AL.’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 20)

I. Introduction

On September 8, 2014, Colette Carpenter, individually and as administrator of the estate of Clayton O. Carpenter, Jon Ternstrom, Maria Ternstrom, Cameron Witzler and Michelle Witzler (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action as a result of the death to one and serious injuries to others that resulted from the crash of a helicopter in Georgia. Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. 1-1, Ex. A. The Complaint advances three causes of action: (1) strict liability; (2) breach of warranty; and (3) negligence. Id. The Complaint names as defendants entities allegedly responsible for manufacturing, inspecting and maintaining the helicopter involved in the crash. Id. They are: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and Sikorsky Aerospace Maintenance (collectively, “Sikorsky Defendants”); Prototype Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc. (“Prototype”); Cubic Defense Applications, Inc. (“Cubic”); and…

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.