Sky Jet M.G. Inc. v. Elliott Aviation, Inc. et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 1/29/2016:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

SKY JET M.G. INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15 C 8113
v.
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
ELLIOTT AVIATION, INC. and
ELLIOTT AVIATION OF THE QUAD
CITIES, INC.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Sky Jet M.G. Inc. (“Sky Jet”) filed a three-count
Complaint for negligence and breach of contract against Defendants
Elliott Aviation, Inc., and Elliott Aviation of the Quad Cities,
Inc. (collectively, “Elliott”).

Before the Court are Elliot’s

Motions transfer the case to the Western Division of this District
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [ECF No. 16], and to dismiss Sky
Jet’s negligence claims (Counts I and II) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 14].

For the reasons stated

herein, both Motions are denied.
I.
The
true,

Court

from

Sky

draws

the

Jet’s

BACKGROUND

following

Complaint.

facts,

which

Elliott

it

accepts

provides

as

aircraft

inspection, repair, and maintenance services from its facility at
the Quad City Airport in Moline, Illinois.

Sky Jet offers private

aircraft charters and flights throughout Quebec, Ontario, and the
United States.
In late May of 2013, Elliott prepared a quote for a landing
gear inspection to be performed on one of Sky Jet’s aircraft (the
“Subject Aircraft”).

According to the contract, which is attached

to the Complaint, the work included the removal and disassembly of
the main and nose landing gear, inspection for wear and corrosion,
reassembly,
provides

painting,

that

the

and

rights

reinstallation.

The

and

of

obligations

contract
both

further

parties

are

“governed and determined by the laws of the State of Iowa,” and
that Sky Jet submits to exclusive jurisdiction in “the state of
Iowa and other such jurisdictions in which the work is performed
(including federal courts within said states).”
Elliott performed the specified work on the Subject Aircraft
in mid-June of 2013.

It then completed several certifications

stating that the Subject Aircraft’s main and nose landing gear
assembly

systems

were

overhauled

in

accordance

with

Federal

Aviation Administration and European safety regulations.
A

few

months

later,

on

September

22,

2014,

Aircraft’s landing gear malfunctioned during flight.
Aircraft

crash

landed

extensive damages.

at

an

airport

in

Quebec

the

Subject

The Subject

City,

incurring

A cargo pod and other property in or near the

Subject Aircraft were also damaged in the crash.

- 2 -

II.
A.

ANALYSIS

Motion to Transfer

The Court begins with Elliot’s Motion to Transfer this case
to

the

Northern

District

of

Illinois,

Western

Division.

The

Western Division provides a more convenient forum, Elliott argues,
because the federal courthouse in Rockford is relatively closer to
Moline.

Sky Jet counters that Moline is located in the Central

District of Illinois, and that in any case, the parties consented
to venue in any federal court in Illinois.
“For
interests

the
of

convenience
justice,

a

of

parties

district

court

and

witnesses,

may

transfer

in

any

the
civil

action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented.”

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

“Transfer is appropriate if (1)

venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee court; (2)
transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and
(3) transfer is in the interests of justice.” Methode Elecs., Inc.
v. Delphi Auto. Sys. LLC, 639 F.Supp.2d 903, 907 (N.D. Ill. 2009)
(citation and internal quotations omitted).

In evaluating the

second and third factors, the Court considers “both the private
interests of the parties and the public interests of the court.”
Medi USA v. Jobst Inst., Inc., 791 F.Supp. 208, 210 (N.D. Ill.
1992).
factors,

District courts have broad discretion in weighing these
and

the

party

seeking
- 3 -

transfer

has

the

burden

of

establishing, by reference to particular circumstances, “that the
transferee forum is clearly more convenient.”

Coffey v. Van Dorn

Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986).
1.

Venue

The parties do not dispute that their contract includes a
forum selection clause, which states that Sky Jet submits to the
jurisdiction of Iowa “and other such jurisdictions in which the
work is performed (including federal courts within said states).”
Because

Elliott

performed

the

landing

gear

inspection

in

Moline, Illinois, venue is proper within any federal court within
the

state,

because

including

the

Northern

District

of

District

has

no

requiring

divisional

this

rule

Illinois.

And

venue,

either the Eastern or Western Division is appropriate. Bjoraker v.
Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp., No. 12 C 7513, 2013 WL 951155, at
*2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013).
2.

Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

In assessing the convenience or “private interest” factors,
the Court considers:

“(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2)

the situs of material events, (3) the relative ease and access to
sources of proof, (4) the convenience of the parties and (5) the
convenience of the witnesses.”
907

(citations

omitted).

Methode Elecs., 639 F.Supp.2d at

Although

courts

typically

afford

a

plaintiff’s choice of forum significant weight, that weight is
diminished if the chosen forum is not the plaintiff’s home forum,

- 4 -

or if it lacks substantial connection with the material events of
the case.
Division

Bjoraker, 2013 WL 951155, at *2. Although the Eastern
is

not

Sky

Jet’s

home

forum,

and

no

material

events

occurred here, Sky Jet asks the Court to give its choice of forum
“substantial weight” because both parties agreed to it through the
forum selection clause.

Sky Jet relies on Atlantic Marine, in

which the Supreme Court reiterated that “a valid forum-selection
clause [should be] given controlling weight in all but the most
exceptional cases.”

Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court

for W. Dist. of Tx., 134 S.Ct. 568, 581 (2013) (citation and
internal

quotations

omitted).

In

that

case,

however,

the

defendant sought to transfer a case to the specific forum listed
in the forum selection clause, the Eastern District of Virginia.
Here,

the

forum

selection

throughout Illinois.

clause

broadly

provides

for

venue

The Court cannot conclude that Sky Jet’s

choice of one contractually valid forum over another is entitled
to substantial weight.

However, Sky Jet’s choice of forum is

still entitled to some deference.
Elliott argues that the next “private interest” factor — the
location of material events — supports transfer to the Western
Division

because

it

performed

the

landing

Moline.

However, Moline is located in Rock Island County, which

is in the Central District of Illinois.

- 5 -

gear

inspection

in

See, 28 U.S.C. § 93(b).

The Western Division is thus no more connected to the material
events of this case than the Eastern Division.
As for ease of access to sources of proof and the overall
convenience

of

parties

and

witnesses,

Elliott

argues

that

the

Western Division provides a more convenient forum because Rockford
is approximately 67 miles closer to Moline than Chicago.

Elliott

notes that because the inspection occurred in Moline, important
evidence will be located there.

Elliott also speculates that its

witnesses will likely be located in Moline and that Sky Jet’s
witnesses will likely be located in Quebec, but neither party will
have any witnesses located in Chicago.

Although

Moline

may

be

relatively closer to some of the sources of proof in this case —
apart

from

any

evidence

found

at

the

crash

site

in

Quebec

–

Elliott has failed to show that the Western Division is “clearly
more convenient.”
Division

is

First, Elliott’s complaint that the Eastern

inconvenient

carries

little

weight

because

agreed to venue in any federal court within Illinois.

Elliott
A party

that agrees to litigate a dispute in a particular forum pursuant
to a forum selection clause “waive[s] the right to assert its own
inconvenience as a reason to transfer the case.”

Heller Fin.,

Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989).
Moreover,

Elliott’s

objection

is

counterbalanced

by

Sky

Jet’s

claim that Chicago is more convenient because it is easier to
reach by air than Rockford.

It therefore appears that moving the

- 6 -

case to Rockford would only shift the inconvenience from Elliott
to

Sky

Jet,

which

is

no

basis

for

transfer.

See,

Research

Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973,
978 (7th Cir. 2010).

Second, Elliott has failed to identify what

witnesses it intends to call or what their likely testimony would
be.

To

show

that

the

Western

Division

is

“clearly

more

convenient,” Elliott must “specify the key witnesses to be called
and make at least a generalized statement of what their testimony
would have included.”
contends
forum

that

for

the

the

Heller, 883 F.2d at 1293. Though Elliott

Western

witnesses

Division
in

this

would

be

a

case,

it

has

generalizations in support of this claim.

more

convenient

offered

only

On balance, the private

interest factors do not support transfer.
3.
“In

assessing

Interests of Justice

which

venue

best

serves

the

interests

of

justice, courts consider (1) the familiarity of the courts with
the applicable law; (2) the speed at which the case will proceed
to trial; and (3) the desirability of resolving controversies in
the

respective

locales.”

(citation omitted).
the

case

of

Bjoraker,

2013

WL

951155,

at

*6

However, these factors carry less weight in

intradistrict

transfer.

Id.

(citation

omitted).

Elliott contends that the first two factors are neutral, but that
the third factor supports transfer because its principal place of
business is located in the Western Division and the aircraft was

- 7 -

serviced

in

the

Western

Division.

As

stated

above,

however,

Moline is located in the Central District of Illinois. Because
neither the landing gear inspection nor the crash occurred in this
District, the Court concludes that the desirability of resolving
the controversy locally is also neutral, and transfer would not
serve the interests of justice.
Because Elliott has not carried its burden in showing that
the Western Division is “clearly more convenient,” its Motion to
Transfer is denied.
B.
A

motion

Rule 12(b)(6)

to

Motion to Dismiss

dismiss

challenges

for
the

failure

legal

to

state

sufficiency

a

of

claim
a

under

complaint.

Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820
(7th Cir. 2009).

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a

complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”
550

U.S.

544,

570

(2007).

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

When

considering

a

Rule

12(b)(6)

motion, a court must accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true,
and

view

them

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

the

plaintiff.

Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th
Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

However, a court need not accept

as true “legal conclusions, or threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.”
Brooks

v.

Ross,

578

F.3d

574,

581

- 8 -

(7th

Cir.

2009)

(quoting

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) (internal quotations
and alterations omitted).
Elliott argues that this Court should dismiss the negligence
claims in Counts I and II because they are barred by the economic
loss

doctrine,

Illinois.

a

legal

principle

recognized

in

both

Iowa

and

As noted above, the contract between Elliott and Sky

Jet contains a choice of law provision indicating that the rights
and

obligations

Although

Elliott

of

both

parties

initially

argued

are

governed

that

Sky

by

Iowa
claims

Jet’s

law.
are

governed by Illinois law, it states on reply that it does not
contest the application of Iowa law to the dispute. Accordingly,
the Court will apply Iowa law.
The

economic

loss

doctrine

bars

recovery

plaintiff has suffered only economic harm.
Ford

Motor

omitted).

Co.,

588

N.W.2d

437,

439

in

tort

when

a

Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v.
(Iowa

1999)

(citation

The purpose of the doctrine is “to prevent litigants

with contract claims from litigating them inappropriately as tort
claims.”

Van Sickle Const. Co. v. Wachovia Commercial Mortg.,

Inc., 783 N.W.2d 684, 693 (Iowa 2010).

Although the rule is often

invoked in products liability cases, it also extends to contracts
for services.

Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Kum & Go, L.C., 801 N.W.2d

499, 506 (Iowa 2011).
In

determining

whether

recovery

in

tort

or

contract

is

available, Iowa courts consider “the nature of the defect, the

- 9 -

type of risk, and the manner in which the injury arose.” Determan
v. Johnson, 613 N.W.2d 259, 262 (Iowa 2000) (citation and internal
quotations omitted).

At minimum, however, “the damage for which

recovery is sought must extend beyond the product itself.”

Id.

(holding that plaintiff could not proceed on a negligence theory
based on structural defects in her newly purchased home because
any harm caused by the defects was to the house itself, not to
other property).
Nevertheless,
sudden

or

available.

when

dangerous

other

property

occurrence,”

damage

recovery

Am. Fire, 588 N.W. 2d at 439.

results
in

from

“a

may

be

tort

In American Fire, an

insurer brought a products liability suit against defendant Ford
Motor Company after an insured’s truck caught fire, damaging both
the truck itself and its contents.

Id. at 438.

Court

claims

drew

failure

to

a

distinction

work

properly,

between
which

sound

in

based

The Iowa Supreme
on

contract,

a

product’s
and

claims

based on a sudden occurrence that endangers a person or property,
which sound in tort.

Id. at 439–440.

The court explained this

distinction through an example:
If a fire alarm fails to work and a building burns down,
that is considered an “economic loss” even though the
building was physically harmed.
It was a foreseeable
consequence from the failure of the product to work
properly. But if the fire was caused by a short circuit
in the fire alarm itself, it is not economic loss.

- 10 -

Id. at 439 (citations omitted).

Because a spontaneous truck fire

was more “a danger than . . . a disappointment,” the economic loss
doctrine did not preclude the insurer’s claims. Id. at 440.
Sky Jet argues that the economic loss doctrine does not apply
in this case because an airplane crash, like an unexpected truck
fire, is a sudden and dangerous occurrence.
that

other

property

was

damaged

in

the

Sky Jet also alleges
crash

apart

from

the

landing gear — specifically, the cargo pod affixed to the Subject
Aircraft, and “other property” in or near the Subject Aircraft.
(Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 18, 22.)

Elliott asserts that Sky Jet’s

claims merely arise from the landing gear’s failure to perform,
and

that

any

damage

to

“other

property”

was

a

foreseeable

consequence of malfunctioning landing gear.

“Unlike the truck in

American

was

Fire,”

Elliott

contends,

“there

no

sudden

and

calamitous defect in the landing gear that actively damaged the
aircraft.”

(Elliott Reply, ECF No. 23, at 5.)

The Complaint provides few details about how the landing gear
malfunctioned.

It

states

only

that

“the

Subject

Aircraft’s

landing gear malfunctioned in flight,” and that Subject Aircraft
crash landed.
Elliott

to

(Compl, ECF No. 1, ¶ 14.)

show

that

this

malfunction

was

Discovery may enable
neither

sudden

nor

dangerous, nor anything more than the landing gear’s failure to
perform properly.

However, at this stage, the Court cannot make

such a factual determination.

Construing the allegations in the

- 11 -

light most favorable to Sky Jet, the Court finds that a landing
gear malfunction may constitute a sudden or dangerous event, such
that

the

economic

negligence claims.

loss

doctrine

does

not

apply

to

Sky

Jet’s

See, ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. Amex Const. Co.,

No. 07C4278, 2008 WL 2168772, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2008)
(permitting
forward
Illinois’

negligence

under

sudden

analogous

claim
or

based

on

dangerous

economic

loss

decoupled

pipe

occurrence

doctrine).

to

move

exception
Likewise,

to
the

Complaint contains some allegations that other property besides
the landing gear was damaged during the crash.

Though Elliott may

ultimately show that this property damage was foreseeable, Sky Jet
has sufficiently alleged that the cargo pod and “other property”
were harmed.

Because Sky Jet has alleged facts that may render

the

loss

economic

doctrine

inapplicable,

Elliott’s

Motion

to

Dismiss is denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Elliot’s Motion to Transfer
[ECF No. 16], and to dismiss [ECF No. 14] are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: January 29, 2016
- 12 -