Edwards v. Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd. et al

Filing 85

ORDER. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Coordinate 58 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/15/16.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00567-PAB-MJW
MARK EDWARDS, as Personal Representative of the Estates of Ronald Bramlage,
deceased, Rebecca Bramlage, deceased, Brandon Bramlage, deceased, Boston
Bramlage, deceased, Beau Bramlage, deceased, and Roxanne Bramlage, deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD., a/k/a Pilatus Flugzeugweke Aktiengesellschaft, a Swiss
company doing business in the United States,
PILATUS BUSINESS AIRCRAFT, LTD., a Colorado corporation, and
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., individually and as successor to AlliedSignal
Aerospace, Inc., and Bendix/King, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Coordinate [Docket
No. 58]. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order coordinating discovery in this action with
a related case in the District of Delaware.1 Docket No. 58 at 1. Plaintiff filed a similar
motion to coordinate discovery in the related District of Delaware case. Edwards v.
Leach International, 2015 WL 7295440 (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2015). That motion was
denied without prejudice on November 18, 2015. Id. at *3. There, the court found that
“the issues raised by [p]laintiff’s motion are best handled in the scheduling process” and

1:15-cv-00321-LPS (D. Del. 2015)

1

that the best way to address those issues was for the parties to meet and confer and to
include any specific provisions they propose to address said issues in their proposed
scheduling order. Id.
Defendants state in their response that they do not oppose coordination between
this action and the related Delaware case, and that the defendants in both the Colorado
case and the Delaware case are committed to cooperate in the interests of all parties.
Docket No. 63 at 1. Plaintiff identifies several issues–inspections, participation in
discovery, and choice of law–in his motion but does not request any specific form of
relief to resolve these issues or identify any opposition that he has faced to coordinated
discovery on these issues from defendants. Neither does plaintiff identify any authority
under which this Court could issue an order that is effective as to the parties in the
District of Delaware litigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has not shown
that an order coordinating discovery with the related District of Delaware case is proper,
or that such an order is warranted at this time.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Coordinate [Docket No. 58] is DENIED.

DATED January 15, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

2