Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carmen Quinones v. Raytheon Aircraft Company et al.

June 1, 2011

CARMEN QUINONES
v.
RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN

Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present Not present Proceedings:

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT [16] (IN CHAMBERS)

The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Carmen Quinones' ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and to Remand the Action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Docket No. 16.) Plaintiff seeks leave to add General Aviation Co. and Crusair Aviation, Inc. (collectively, "Proposed Defendants"), both California corporations, as defendants pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule__"). (Mot. at 3.) Having considered the motion, opposition, reply, and supporting papers, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for June 6, 2011 is removed from the Court's calendar. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for leave to file a FAC is GRANTED. Because the newly added parties destroy diversity, the Court REMANDS the action to the LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This wrongful death action stems from a tragic accident that took the lives of Mustapha Sesay ("Sesay"), Rajesh Vashdev ("Vashdev"), and Jorge Quinones ("the Decedent"). Plaintiff is the widow of the Decedent, who was a passenger of an aircraft operated by Sesay and Vashdev on that fateful day of July 15, 2009. During the flight of the aircraft near an airport, the aircraft crashed off the runway and into a parking lot, killing Sesay, Vashdev, and the Decedent. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Based on these allegations, on March 24, 2011, Plaintiff commenced the instant action in the state court and named the following as defendants: Raytheon Aircraft Company, Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. ("TCM"), Tornado Alley Turbo, Inc., General Aviation Modifications, Inc., and Kelly Aerospace, Inc. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; (4) strict products liability; and (5) failure to warn. (Docket No. 1; Notice of Removal, Ex. A.)

On March 22, 2011, two days before the filing of this suit, Vashdev's heirs filed a lawsuit against the same defendants in the Los Angeles County Superior Court captioned, Rohera et al. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., et al., Case No. BC457855 ("Rohera"). The complaint in Rohera is identical to the complaint filed in this action, except for the names of the plaintiffs.

On March 25, 2011, TCM removed both Rohera and the instant case to this district on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Rohera was assigned to Judge Gary Klausner and the instant case was assigned to this Court.

On April 5, 2011, Judge Klausner, on his own motion, remanded Rohera to the state court on the ground that TCM failed to demonstrate in its Notice of Removal that the amount in controversy was met. (See CV 11-2530-RGK (FFMx), docket no. 6.) The Notice of Removal in Rohera is identical to that filed in this case. Thereafter, plaintiffs Rohera filed an amended complaint in the state court and added the Proposed Defendants as parties to that action. (Brusavich Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C [Los Angeles Superior Court Case Summary for Case No. BC457855].)

Plaintiff now moves for an order permitting her to amend her complaint for the purpose of adding the Proposed Defendants as parties to the instant action. Because the Proposed Defendants are citizens of California, permitting their joinder would destroy diversity, which serves as the basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. As such, Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.