Barbara Thorne et al v. Bath Iron Works Corp. et al

Filing 21

ORDER STAYING CASE. The motion hearing, which had been noticed for Friday, August 22, is hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 8/20/2014. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

10

BARBARA THORNE; BRENDA MARONDE;
CELESTIA SIMS-MAYER; and BECKY
PRICE,

11

Plaintiffs,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12
13
14
15

v.
BATH IRON WORKS CORP.; and FOSTER
WHEELER LLC
Defendants.

16
17
18

) Case No. 14-02460 SC
)
) ORDER RE BATH IRON WORKS'
) MOTION TO DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19
20

Now before the Court is Defendant Bath Iron Works' ("Bath")

21

motion to dismiss.

22

Judge Eduardo Robreno's decision in Mack v. General Electric Co.,

23

896 F. Supp. 2d 333 (E.D. Pa. 2012) and an unpublished summary

24

judgment order from the Central District of California, McIndoe v.

25

Crane Co., CV 12-09639-RGK (SSx), ECF No. 258 ("McIndoe SJ Order"),

26

in support of their argument that a naval vessel is not a "product"

27

for the purposes of strict products liability.

28

McIndoe is presently on appeal, and the Ninth Circuit will be

ECF No. 14 ("MTD").

Bath's motion relies on

As Bath notes,

1

squarely presented with the question of whether a naval vessel is a

2

"product."

3

Huntington Ingalls Inc., No. 13-56762 (9th Cir.).

4

See ECF No. 18 ("Reply") at 2 n.2; see also McIndoe v.

Therefore, in the interest of conserving judicial resources,

5

the Court STAYS the case pending the decision in McIndoe, and

6

VACATES the hearing on the motion to dismiss currently scheduled

7

for Friday, August 22, 2014.

8

Ninth Circuit's decision in McIndoe, the parties shall file notice

9

of the decision with the Court.

Within fourteen (14) days of the

With that notice the parties shall

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

file a joint status report outlining their future plans with

11

respect to the motion to dismiss.

12

issue an order scheduling supplemental briefing on the motion.

13

If necessary, the Court will

If the parties do not file notice and a joint status report

14

following the decision in McIndoe, the stay will be lifted, and the

15

Court will decide the motion to dismiss.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: August 20, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2