Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00575-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CROMAN CORPORATION, an Oregon ) 2:05-cv-0575-GEB-JFM

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER*

)

v. )

)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; SIKORSKY )

AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; HELICOPTER )

SUPPORT, INC., a Connecticut )

corporation; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES )

CORPORATION, a Delaware )

corporation; and ROTAIR )

INDUSTRIES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Defendants United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”), Sikorsky

Aircraft Corporation, Inc. (“Sikorsky”), and Helicopter Support, Inc.

(“HSI”) (collectively the “Defendants”) move to dismiss Plaintiff

Croman Corporation’s (“Croman”) Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”)

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative,

Case 2:05-cv-00575-GEB-JFM Document 55 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 5
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

1 UTC noticed its motions on July 7, 2005. On August 19,

2005, Sikorsky and HSI filed a “Notice of Joinder” to UTC’s

motions so that the relief requested by UTC would apply to them

if granted. The “Notice of Joinder” is untimely because it

failed to satisfy the notice requirement of L.R. 78-230(b). Even

though the “Notice of Joinder” is untimely, the motions will be

decided as if UTC, Sikorsky, and HSI had brought them in the

first instance because the decision will not adversely affect

Croman. 

2 All references to Rules herein are to the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2

for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(e).1 For the reasons stated below the motions are denied.

Background

On March 26, 2002, a Sikorsky S-61A helicopter owned by

Croman crashed near Lakehead, California. The helicopter was

destroyed in the crash. Croman’s Complaint alleges that Defendants

caused the accident that destroyed the helicopter and raises three

claims against them: strict products liability, negligence, and

breach of express and implied warranties. 

Motion to Dismiss2

Defendants seek dismissal of Croman’s claims arguing that an

actionable claim is not stated. First, they argue that Croman’s

claims for strict products liability and negligence are barred by the

“economic loss rule.” Second, they argue that Croman’s claims for

breach of warranty and strict products liability fail to allege a

necessary element.

"[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state

a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no

set of facts in support of [its] claim which would entitle [it] to

relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (footnote

Case 2:05-cv-00575-GEB-JFM Document 55 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 5
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

omitted); see also De Le Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir.

1978) (indicating that the inquiry is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to proceed in attempting to establish its claim). Thus, all

allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true and are construed

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Terracom v. Valley

Nat'l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1995); Chandler v. McMinnville

School Dist., 978 F.2d 524, 526-27 (9th Cir. 1992).

Defendants argue that the “economic loss rule” bars Croman’s

tort claims. (Mot. at 5.) In California, the “economic loss rule”

prohibits tort plaintiffs from recovering damage to a defective

product when the damage was caused by the product defect. Jimenez v.

Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 473, 483 (2002); Robinson Helicopter Co.,

Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979, 989 (2004). Plaintiffs, however,

may recover in tort if the defective product “cause[d] damage to other

property, that is, property other than the product itself.” Jimenez,

Cal. 4th at 483 (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants

contend that Croman only complains of damage to the allegedly

defective products and therefore, its tort claims are barred by the

“economic loss rule.” (Mot. at 6.)

Croman, however, has alleged that “component parts” were

defective and contributed to the loss of the helicopter. (Second Am.

Compl. at ¶ 12.) See KB Home v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. App. 4th

1076, 1079-80 (2003)(indicating that determining whether “other

property” was damaged involves resolution of factual allegations). 

Since, Defendants have not shown that Croman’s factual allegation

entitles them to dismissal as a matter of law, this portion of the

motion is denied.

Case 2:05-cv-00575-GEB-JFM Document 55 Filed 09/13/05 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendants also argue that Croman’s claims for breach of

warranty and strict products liability should be dismissed because

Croman has not alleged a necessary element of each claim in its

Complaint. The Rules require a plaintiff to plead “‘a short and plain

statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of

what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” 

Conley, 355 U.S. at 47 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Thus, “it is

not necessary that plaintiff state sufficient facts to constitute a

cause of action”; plaintiff must only “set forth enough details so as

to provide defendant and the court with a fair idea of the basis of

the complaint and the legal grounds claimed for recovery.” Self

Directed Placement Corp. v. Control Data Corp., 908 F.2d 462, 466 (9th

Cir. 1990)(citing Conley, 355 U.S. at 48). Since Croman has provided

Defendants with sufficient “notice pleading,” the motion to dismiss is

denied.

Motion for a More Definite Statement

Alternatively, Defendants contend that their motion for a

more definite statement should be granted because Croman’s Complaint

neither identifies the parts allegedly designed or manufactured by

them nor those parts which allegedly caused the accident. Rule 12(e)

provides that a motion for a more definite statement is appropriate

where the complaint so “vague or ambiguous that a party cannot

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(e). The omissions about which Defendants complain do not make

the Complaint so vague or ambiguous as to preclude them from framing

an answer. See Sasan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077

(C.D. Cal. 1994) (“Parties are expected to use discovery, not the

Case 2:05-cv-00575-GEB-JFM Document 55 Filed 09/13/05 Page 4 of 5
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

pleadings, to learn the specifics of the claims being asserted.”). 

Therefore, the motion for a more definite statement is also denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00575-GEB-JFM Document 55 Filed 09/13/05 Page 5 of 5