Gatx/Airlog Company, et al v. Evergreen Intl, et al

Filing 2227

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING CTAS'S 2220 MOTION FOR RULING ON SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP AND GRANTING ITS REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

KALITTA AIR, LLC, as assignee of
American International Airways,
Inc.,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL TEXAS AIRBORNE SYSTEMS,
INC.,

No. C 96-02494 CW
ORDER DENYING
CTAS'S MOTION FOR
RULING ON SPECIAL
RELATIONSHIP AND
GRANTING ITS
REQUEST FOR ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT
(Docket No. 2220)

Defendant.
________________________________/

11
12

Defendant Central Texas Airborne Systems, Inc. (CTAS) has

13

moved for a "Ruling on Special Relationship Issues" and requested

14

entry of judgment.

15

determination that, as a matter of law, it has no special

16

relationship with Plaintiff Kalitta Air, LLC.

17

relationship would have precluded Kalitta from recovering damages

18

for purely economic loss based on its negligence claim.

Docket No. 2220.

CTAS seeks a judicial

Lack of such a

19

In general, in actions for negligence, liability is limited

20

to damages for physical injuries, and recovery for economic loss

21

alone is not permitted.

22

652 (2000) (citing Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal. 2d 9, 18

23

(1965)).

24

a plaintiff has established a special relationship between itself

25

and the tortfeasor.

26

(1979).

27

relationship under J'Aire, comprises the following factors:

28

Aas v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 4th 627,

However, an exception to the general rule applies where

J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory, 24 Cal. 3d 799, 804

The test to determine the existence of a special

1

(1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the

2

plaintiff, (2) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff,

3

(3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury,

4

(4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's

5

conduct and the injury suffered, (5) the moral blame attached to

6

the defendant's conduct, and (6) the policy of preventing future

7

harm.

8
9

Id.
Prior to trial, CTAS had moved for summary judgment that it

had no special relationship with Kalitta.

The Court found that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

disputed issues of material fact precluded such a ruling.

11

the parties' agreement, the Court contemplated that, if the jury

12

returned a negligence verdict and awarded damages, the Court would

13

then resolve whether a special relationship existed under the six

14

factor test in J'Aire, being advised by the jury's findings.

15

the Court found no special relationship, the jury's negligence

16

verdict and damages award would have been set aside as violative

17

of the economic loss rule.

18

trial, CTAS moved for judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1), and the Court took the

20

motion under submission.

21

finding that CTAS was not negligent.

22

50(a)(1) motion under Rule 50(b).

23

With

If

At the close of Kalitta's case at

Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict
CTAS renewed its Rule

The jury's verdict on the question of CTAS's negligence

24

informs several of the J'Aire factors.

25

J'Aire factor, the Court infers, based on the jury's verdict of no

26

negligence, that any harm to Kalitta was not foreseeable.

27

no negligence, the jury had no occasion to determine whether

28

Kalitta suffered injury, the third factor.
2

With respect to the second

Finding

However, even if

1

Kalitta suffered economic injury from the grounding of its

2

airplanes, the jury's verdict indicates that the injury was not

3

caused by CTAS.

4

Kalitta's injury is not close, the fourth factor.

5

was found not negligent, under the fifth factor, moral blame

6

cannot be attached to CTAS' conduct and, under the sixth factor,

7

the policy of preventing future harm would not be furthered by an

8

exception to the economic loss rule here.

Thus, the connection between CTAS's conduct and
Given that CTAS

More importantly, however, a determination on the special

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

relationship question is now moot because no damages have been

11

awarded.

12

the transaction was intended to affect Kalitta, or what it would

13

find if the jury's verdict were set aside and a new jury were to

14

find negligence and award damages.

15

The Court will not make an advisory ruling as to whether

CTAS's request for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule

16

of Civil Procedure 58 is granted, although not in the language

17

proposed by CTAS.

18

shall recover its costs from Kalitta.

19

The clerk will enter judgment for CTAS and CTAS

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: 3/20/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3