Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22TRCV00428, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00428    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 1

22TRCV00428           BASIA TROUT vs ROBINSON HELICOPTER COMPANY

Defendant’s Motion re: Deeming Cases “Related” and Transferring Action to Central District

TENTATIVE RULING:  Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s Motion Re: Deeming Cases “Related” And Transferring Action To Central District is GRANTED as to the request to relate the two cases. The request to transfer is MOOT.  Accordingly, Department 1 relates civil law cases 22TRCV00428 and  22STCV17187 orders 22TRCV00428 reassigned to Department 55 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in civil law case 22TRCV00428 are hereby advanced and vacated.  Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

Background of 22TRCV00428 Trout v. Robinson Helicopter

On May 25, 2022, Basia Trout, individually and as the personal representative of Decedent Lora Trout, and Roger Trout, filed 22TRCV00428 against Robinson Helicopter Company arising out of a March 25, 2022 helicopter accident near Rowlett, Texas in which “[t]he certified flight instructor (CFI Lora Trout) and student pilot (Ty Wallis) sustained fatal injuries.” (Compl. ¶ 29.) The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) strict products liability; and (2) negligence. Plaintiff identifies fourteen different defects in the N514CD helicopter manufactured by Defendant involved in the accident, which along with Defendant’s flight training syllabus, are alleged to be substantial factors in the accident.

On July 15, 2022, Robinson Helicopter filed a cross-complaint against Basia Trout, as the personal representative of Lora Trout, for: (1) equitable indemnity; (2) comparative indemnity; (3) equitable apportionment of fault; (4) contribution; and (5) declaratory relief. The cross-complaint attaches the complaint filed in 22STCV17187 Wallis v. Robinson Helicopter, and seeks to determine the parties’ relative liability for any damages in that case.

On July 19, 2022, Defendant filed Notice of Related Case involving 22TRCV00428 and 22STCV17187. On September 13, 2022, Judge Malcolm Mackey issued an order finding the cases were “not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).”

This case is currently pending in Department B of the Torrance Courthouse with the next hearing set for June 20, 2024.

Background of 22STCV17187 Wallis v. Robinson Helicopter

On May 24, 2022, Kristen M. Wallis, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tyson Wallis, filed 22STCV17187 against Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. arising out of the March 25, 2022 helicopter accident in Rowlett, Texas that resulted in the death of Dr. Tyson ‘Ty’ Wallis, a student pilot on an instructional flight, and flight instructor Lora Trout. The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) strict product liability; and (2) negligence. The complaint alleges the “N514CD was defective in its manufacture and/or design and/or lack of warnings, and was otherwise unreasonably dangerous, including but not limited to, by leading to separation of the tail rotor section, tail boom strikes, mast-bumping, loss of control, and sudden catastrophic break up during normal flight.” (Compl. ¶ 37.)

On July 19, 2022, Robinson Helicopter filed a cross-complaint against Kristen Wallis, as the personal representative of the Estate of Tyson Wallace, for: (1) equitable indemnity; (2) comparative indemnity; (3) equitable apportionment of fault; (4) contribution; and (5) declaratory relief. The cross-complaint attaches the complaint filed in 22TRCV00428 and seeks to determine the parties’ relative liability for any damages in that case.

Also on July 19, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer from the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court to the Southwest District. Judge David J. Cowan, then sitting in Department 1, denied the motion on December 8, 2022. Though the order addressed the standard for relating cases and discussed the issue, the order provided “[t]he Court notes they are not ruling on the relatedness issue and only ruling on the issue of transfer.”

This case is currently pending in Department 55 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse with trial set for February 24, 2025.

Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of various documents filed in the two cases is GRANTED as to their existence and legal effect only. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) The request for judicial notice of the National Transportation Safety Board’s Preliminary Report is also GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(c).)  

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).)

The Motion to Relate is Procedurally Proper

As noted above, Judge Mackey issued an order declining to relate the two cases on September 13, 2022. In their objection and response, Plaintiffs cite Code of Civil section 1008, which is immaterial to Defendant’s motion herein. Defendant’s motion is expressly authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) and LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3) and is not constrained by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Defendant’s argument that a Notice of Related Case is not an “application for an order” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, (Reply at 2:26-28), is also persuasive.

Defendant’s motion is also not an improper motion for reconsideration of Defendant’s prior motion in Department 1. Judge Cowan’s prior order noted Defendant had not moved to relate the cases and expressly declined to rule on the relatedness issue.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to relate is properly made in Department 1.

Court Finds the Cases are Related

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).) Issues raised by Plaintiff Wallace regarding potential jury confusion, (Opp. at 6:13-14), are more appropriate in response to a motion for consolidation and are immaterial to a motion to relate.

The cases do not involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) As Defendant acknowledges, “the plaintiffs are different.” (Mot. at 12:6.)

However, the cases do arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. Both cases arise from the March 25, 2022 N514CD helicopter accident near Rowlett, Texas in which Lora Trout and Tyrone Wallis were killed as well as the manufacture and design of the N514CD. Both cases allege the N514CD was defective, subjecting Robinson Helicopter to strict products liability and Robinson Helicopter was negligent in its manufacture and design of the N514CD. Identical questions of law and fact regarding the N514CD predominate both cases.

The cases are also likely to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if they continue to be heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) The cases arise from the same accident and assert the same claims against the same defendant. Other than issues pertaining to damages and relative fault, the cases are likely to be substantially identical in the legal issues presented and the judicial resources required to bring the matters to a resolution. Additionally, in both cases, Robinson Helicopter filed a cross-complaint relying upon the other case and seeking to apportion liability. Thus, the judicial officer in each case will be required to review the other action to resolve the cross-complaint.

The Court finds 22TRCV00428 and 22STCV17187 related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

Defendant’s motion to deem the cases related is GRANTED.

Motion to Transfer Between Districts

Defendant separately moved the Court to transfer the action to Department 55 of the Central District pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.3(b)(2). (Mot. at 15:23-17:21.) This request is MOOT in light of the Court’s ruling on the request to relate the two cases.

The Court notes Defendant’s request failed to satisfy Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) as it argues the ends of justice would be promoted only by a transfer specifically to Department 55 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District. (Mot. at 8:11-14; 17:25-18:2; Reply at 3: 3-4; 9:20-25.) However, Local Rule 2.3 authorizes a transfer to the Central District generally. (LASC Local Rule, 2.3(b)(2) (“The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division may . . . transfer a civil case from one district to another.”). Nothing in the Local Rules permits the Court to transfer a case to a specific department within a district and litigants are not permitted to choose their assigned judicial officer. (See generally LASC Local 3.3(b) (“The clerk must take all reasonably appropriate steps, including a system of random use of case numbers, to ensure that neither any party nor any counsel will be able to anticipate a case assignment.”).) Defendant’s motion does not argue or demonstrate that the ends of justice would be served by a transfer to the Central District, rather than to a specific judicial officer, as required.