United States District Court, C.D. California
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Brian Gordon Beecher.
Attorneys for Defendants: Kevin R. Sutherland.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANT EVA AIRWAYS CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (filed 01/26/12)
DEFENDANT EVA AIRWAYS CORPORATION'S MOTION TO AMEND COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 (filed 02/13/12)
Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The Court's Tentative Ruling is circulated and attached hereto. Court hears oral argument. For reasons stated on the record, the motions are TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION. A non-appearance status
conference is set for March 1,2012. Court to issue ruling.
The post mediation status conference set for March 1, 2012 is taken off-calendar.
Ko v. EVA Airways Corp.. Case No. CV-11-5995
Tentative Rulings on: (1) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and (2) Motion to Amend Court's Scheduling Order Dated September 19,2011
Plaintiff Andrew Ko (" Plaintiff') brings this action -- removed to this Court based upon both diversity and federal question jurisdiction -- against Eva Airways Corporation (" EVA" ), for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and interference with custodial relations with a minor child. Plaintiff was formerly married to Yu Xin Wang and fathered twin boys C and W with her. See Complaint ¶ ¶ 3, 19. Plaintiff and Wang separated in 2008 and were granted joint custody by a California court. See id. ¶ ¶ 19-20. On August 30, 2009, Wang picked the children up for a piano lesson, but instead took them to the Republic of Singapore on one of EVA's planes. See id. ¶ ¶ 23-25. Wang was charged with felony kidnapping and Plaintiff regained custody of the children on March 15, 2011, following a custody ruling in his favor. See id. ¶ ¶ 35, 40-42.-Plaintiff incurred significant expense to recover custody of his children, was not able to see them regularly for a year and a half, and was insulted verbally by his children when he did recover them. See id. ¶ ¶ 11 23,42-43.
Plaintiff alleges that EVA violated industry best practices which would have prevented this abduction. Specifically, the complaint alleges that when a child is travelling to a foreign country, especially a country such as Singapore which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and has been identified by the State Department as a frequent destination for child abductions, most airlines require proof of custody from the travelling parent or a letter of consent from the parent who is not present. See id. ¶ ¶ 11-14. Plaintiff also alleges that EVA failed to collect 1-94 ...