Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01542/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01542-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Defendant Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc. (BRS) did not file

a motion for summary judgment. BRS filed a late notice of joinder

in Defendant Cirrus's motion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUE JAN MCGRATH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Nos. C 05-1542 CW

C 06-3800 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants Cirrus Design Corporation, Aerospace Systems &

Technologies, Inc. and the United States each move separately for

summary judgment.1 Plaintiffs Sue Jan, Charles, Tanya Sue and

Janny Sue McGrath oppose the motion and "request for denial or

continuance of summary judgment." Opposition at 1-2. The motions

were heard on December 6, 2007. Having considered the parties'

papers and oral argument on the motions, the Court GRANTS

Defendants' motions.

Case 4:05-cv-01542-CW Document 64 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2005, Charles McGrath was killed when his

Cirrus SR22 airplane crashed in the Sierra Nevada mountains. On

April 14, 2005, McGrath's wife and children brought claims against

the manufacturer of the airplane Cirrus and manufacturers of

various components of the airplane Aerospace Systems & Technologies

and BRS for strict products liability, negligence and breach of

warranty. On September 1, 2005, the Court entered a case

management order setting the close of fact discovery for September

1, 2006, the close of expert discovery for December 15, 2006 and a

May 7, 2007 trial date. 

On November 15, 2005, Plaintiffs presented to the Federal

Aviation Administration a claim for wrongful death. On June 16,

2006, Plaintiffs filed in this Court a wrongful death claim against

the United States. Pursuant to a stipulation, the cases were

consolidated and the case management scheduled was modified,

extending the fact discovery cut-off to February 28, 2007 and

completion of expert discovery to June 13, 2007. A new trial date

was set for November 5, 2007. Again by stipulation, in February,

2007, the Court extended the close of fact discovery to May 31,

2007, the close of expert discovery to September 14, 2007 and the

trial date to March 24, 2008.

DISCUSSION

Defendants move for summary judgment, noting that Plaintiffs

have not disclosed any experts, deposed Defendants' experts or

deposed any of Defendants' representatives. Further, Plaintiffs

have not served the United States with any interrogatories,

Case 4:05-cv-01542-CW Document 64 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

requests for production or requests for admissions. Plaintiffs

concede that they "have not been able to compile a factual record

that will allow them raise a genuine dispute of material fact in

response to the pending motions for summary judgment." Opposition

at 2. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court 

deny the motions and order defendants to submit to the

depositions that have been noticed for months but have

not taken place or, in the alternative, to continue the

summary judgments until a suitable later date and allow

plaintiffs to take the depositions they have noticed

and require so that they may make a proper response to

the pending motions. 

Id. Plaintiffs state that their request is made pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). However, Plaintiffs have

not filed or noticed a motion. Further, Plaintiffs' request would

require modification of the Court's scheduling order because

discovery closed on May 31, 2007. Plaintiffs have not moved for

such modification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 

Even construing Plaintiffs' opposition as a motion to continue

consideration of the motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule

56(f) and as a motion to modify the Court's scheduling order

pursuant to Rule 16(b), Plaintiffs have not established that they

are entitled to relief under either rule.

I. Rule 16(b)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a case

management schedule "shall not be modified except upon a showing of

good cause and by leave of the district judge." Plaintiffs

acknowledge that this is a complicated "deposition-intensive" case

and state that the evidence needed to prove their claims "must be

obtained from [] defendants, and particularly through depositions

Case 4:05-cv-01542-CW Document 64 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

of their employees." Steinle Decl. ¶ 5. However, Plaintiffs

provide no concrete reasons for their failure to take those

depositions. Plaintiffs refer to "repeated requests by telephone,

email and letter" and cancellation of scheduled depositions, but

only conclude, "[f]or whatever reasons--and they are not always

clear--the result was that plaintiffs were unable to take the

necessary depositions to give them the factual record they need

here." Opposition at 3-4. Plaintiffs attach only their

deposition notices sent in December, 2006 and January, 2007 and a

single letter dated May 18, 2007, seeking to schedule depositions,

in support of their contention that they diligently attempted to

schedule depositions of Defendants' representatives prior to the

close of fact discovery on May 31, 2007. See Steinle Decl., Exs. A

and C. 

Plaintiffs acknowledge that they never filed a motion to

compel or sought from the Court any relief related to their

difficulties in scheduling depositions other than the current

request. See id. ¶ 9. Discovery has been closed for almost six

months. 

This is not enough to establish good cause. As the Ninth

Circuit has held, “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of

paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel

without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F. 2d

604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).

II. Rule 56(f) 

Further, Plaintiffs have not established that they are

entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 56(f), which provides,

Case 4:05-cv-01542-CW Document 64 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing

the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated

present by affidavit facts essential to justify the

party's opposition, the court may refuse the application

for judgment or may order a continuance to permit

affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or

discovery to be had or may make such other order as is

just.

"A Rule 56(f) motion must show how additional discovery would

preclude summary judgment and why a party cannot immediately

provide 'specific facts' demonstrating a genuine issue of material

fact." Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir.

1989). Plaintiffs have not identified any specific facts they

intend to seek through the proposed depositions. In fact,

Plaintiffs appear to concede that they do not even know what facts

might exist. 

Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under Rule 56(f). "A

movant cannot complain if it fails diligently to pursue discovery

before summary judgment." Id. (citing Brae Transp., Inc. v.

Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1986); Frederick

S. Wyle P.C. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d 604, 612 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

III. Summary Judgment

In order to prevail on their strict product liability and

negligence claims against any Defendant, Plaintiffs must prove that

the Defendant's product was defectively designed, contained a

manufacturing defect or was defective because it did not include

sufficient instructions or warnings of potential safety hazards. 

Carlin v. Super. Ct., 13 Cal. 4th 1104, 1109 (1996) (strict product

liability; Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 4 Cal. 3d 379, 383

(1971) (negligence). To prevail on their breach of warranty

Case 4:05-cv-01542-CW Document 64 Filed 12/12/07 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

claims, Plaintiffs must prove that each Defendant made an express

promise that its product would perform in a certain way and the

product did not, or that the product was not reasonably fit for the

ordinary purposes for which it was sold. Hauter v. Zogarts, 14

Cal. 3d 104, 115-16 (1975) (express warranty); American Suzuki

Motor Corp. v. Super Ct., 37 Cal. App. 4th 1291, 1295 (1995)

(implied warranty of merchantability). To prevail on their claim

against the United States, Plaintiffs must prove that a private

person would be liable to them under the circumstances in the place

of the alleged wrongful act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Under

either California or Nevada law, Plaintiffs would have to prove the

existence and breach of a legal duty of care. To prevail on any of

their claims, Plaintiffs must prove proximate cause. Beech

Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 51 F.3d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 1995);

Setliff v. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 32 Cal. App. 4th 1525, 1533

(1995). 

Because Plaintiffs concede that they cannot adduce any

evidence to create a triable question of fact with respect to any

of these issues, the Court grants Defendants' motions for summary

judgment. 

IV. Defendant BRS

As noted above, Defendant BRS did not properly move for

summary judgment. However, the Court sua sponte grants summary

judgment in BRS's favor. Cf. Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v.

Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

116 S. Ct. 178 (1995) (holding that sua sponte grant of summary

judgment in favor of nonappearing party is permissible where (1)

Case 4:05-cv-01542-CW Document 64 Filed 12/12/07 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendant Cirrus's motion to strike the late-filed

declaration of Abdon D. Llorente in support of Plaintiffs'

opposition is granted (Docket No. 62). Plaintiffs provided no

grounds for excusing the late filing or for allowing reliance on a

previously undisclosed expert. Further, Cirrus's substantive

objections to the declaration are well taken. In the same

document, Cirrus moved for sanctions. However, as stated at oral

argument, any motion for sanctions must be made in its own properly

noticed pleading. Cirrus's motion for sanctions is denied. 

7

controlling issues would be the same as to the unserved defendants,

(2) issues have been briefed, and (3) plaintiff has been provided

an opportunity to address the controlling issues). Plaintiffs

state that they do not have any evidence to support their claims

against BRS. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants'

motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 39, 44, 49).2 Judgment

shall enter accordingly. Defendants shall recover their costs of

suit from Plaintiffs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/12/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01542-CW Document 64 Filed 12/12/07 Page 7 of 7