Caves v. Beechcraft Corporation et al

Filing 95

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; denying 82 Motion to Amend (djh, Dpty Clk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

REGINA S. CAVES, surviving spouse of
Wesley Bryan Caves,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEECHCRAFT CORPORATION f/k/a
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, a Kansas
Corporation, and HAWKER BEECHCRAFT
GLOBAL CUSTOMER SUPPORT, LLC
f/k/a Hawker Beechcraft Services, Inc.,
a Kansas limited liability company,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-0125-CVE-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is plaintiff’s Application to File Second Amended Complaint and Brief
in Support (Opposed) (Dkt. # 82). Plaintiff Regina S. Caves requests leave to file a second amended
complaint alleging a manufacturer’s liability claim against defendant Hawker Beechcraft Global
Customer Support (HBGCS), because she claims that she has learned new information in the
discovery process giving rise to a new claim against HBGCS. Dkt. # 82, at 7. Defendants respond
that plaintiff’s motion to amend is untimely and that plaintiff has failed to show good cause for
seeking leave to amend after the expiration of the deadline in the scheduling order to file such
motions. Dkt. # 84.
On March 16, 2015, plaintiff filed this case alleging that her husband, Wesley Bryan Caves,
died in an airplane crash when he was flying a Beech Premier 390 aircraft from Tulsa, Oklahoma
to South Bend, Indiana. She alleges that the aircraft had numerous electrical failures of which
defendants were aware, because the failures had allegedly been repaired by Beechcraft Corporation

(Beechcraft) and HBGCS. Dkt. # 2, at 3-4. Plaintiff claims that the aircraft’s engines inadvertently
shut down during flight and, due to a defective electrical bus distribution system, plaintiff’s husband
was unable to restart the engines. Id. at 5. She also claims that the electrical problems prevented
the main landing gear of the aircraft from fully extending. Id. at 6. Plaintiff’s husband could not
successfully land the aircraft and it crashed near the airport in South Bend, and he was killed in the
crash. Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges claims of negligence against Beechcraft and HBGCS, and she also
alleges a claim of manufacturer’s products liability against Beechcraft.
The parties submitted a joint status report (Dkt. # 22) requesting 12 months to conduct
discovery due to the complexity of the case, and they proposed that motions to amend to add parties
or claims be filed no later than August 31, 2015. The Court entered a scheduling order (Dkt. # 23)
setting a deadline of August 31, 2015 for motions to join parties or amend the complaint, and the
discovery cutoff is set for May 15, 2016. On August 20, 2015, defendants sent plaintiff responses
to interrogatories, and plaintiff claims that she learned for the first time that defendants modified the
aircraft’s circuit breaker panel pursuant to Recommended Service Bulletin 24-3868 (RSB). Plaintiff
claims that the RSB does not suggest that the electrical connection at issue needed to be modified.
Dkt. # 48, at 4. On October 1, 2015, plaintiff’s counsel requested that defense counsel provide
additional information about the modification. Dkt. # 48-4, at 2. Defense counsel sent a letter to
plaintiff’s counsel on October 9, 2015, and defense counsel denied that the electrical connection had
been “altered.” Dkt. #48-7, at 2. Plaintiff also states that on September 23, 2015 she was able to
arrange for an expert to inspect the landing gear of an aircraft similar to the one that crashed, and
her expert identified a potential defect with the landing gear separate from the electrical defect
alleged in the complaint. Dkt. # 48, at 5.

2

On October 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to amend seeking leave to file an amended
complaint including the following factual allegations:
1.

Defective design of the alternate gear extension system to comply with
Defendant’s own specifications of a maximum of 25 lbs. pull force to drop
the nose gear, and a maximum of 64 lbs. to drop the main gear and;

2.

As alleged that at the time of compliance with the [RSB] dealing with the
essential bus, that Defendant HBGCS was acting as agent and servant of
Defendant Beech in altering the essential bus, if indeed such an alteration
even occurred, and if such alteration occurred, to allege that the kit
manufactured by Beech was defective, and that it created a defective aircraft
before the manufacturer, through its agent, returned the aircraft to the
consumer when at Defendants’ request, the aircraft was brought into
compliance with the [RSB].

Id. at 7. Plaintiff acknowledged that its motion to amend was filed outside of the applicable deadline
in the scheduling order, but she argued that she could not have obtained the necessary discovery
from defendant before the deadline expired. Id. at 3-6. Defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion and
argued that the motion was untimely. Dkt. # 56. The Court found that plaintiff had provided an
adequate explanation for the delay in filing her motion to amend. Dkt. # 59, at 5-6. Plaintiff could
not reasonably have identified a defect with the landing gear until she examined a Beech Premier
390 aircraft and she was diligent in seeking discovery about the allegedly defective electrical bus
manufactured by Beechcraft and installed by HBGCS. Id. at 6.
Discovery continued while the motion to amend was pending. On November 5, 2015 and
January 28, 2016, plaintiff and her experts examined separate Beech Premier 390 aircraft, and both
aircraft allegedly had the same problem with the landing gear that was previously identified on
September 23, 2015. Dkt. # 82, at 2. Plaintiff received supplemental discovery responses from
defendant from November 2015 to February 2016, but plaintiff has also filed five motions to compel
discovery. See Dkt. ## 37, 40, 42, 53, 78. On January 31 and February 1, 2016, plaintiff received
3

reports from two of her experts and the experts opined that the Beech Premier 390 aircraft was
defective due to a problem with the landing gear and a systemic electrical supply problem. Dkt. #
82, at 3-4. Both experts also faulted HBGCS for failing to identify these alleged defects when it had
the aircraft in its possession to perform other repairs. Id.
Plaintiff requests leave to file a second amended complaint asserting a manufacturer’s
liability claim against HBGCS. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), after the opposing party has served
a responsive pleading, “a party may amend its pleadings only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave.” Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir.
2006). The decision to grant leave to amend is within the discretion of the district court but, when
leave is sought, it should be “freely given when justice so requires.” Bradley v.Val-Majias, 379 F.3d
892, 900-91 (10th Cir. 2004). Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment would be
futile and would not survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Jefferson County
Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Services, Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir. 1999). Denial
of a motion to amend may also be appropriate if the moving party unduly delayed when seeking
leave to amend and has no adequate explanation for the delay. Minter, 451 F.3d at 1206. “In the
Tenth Circuit, untimeliness alone is an adequate reason to refuse leave to amend.” Duncan v.
Manager, Dept’ of Safety, City and County of Denver, 397 F.3d 1300, 1315 (10th Cir. 2005).
When a party seeks leave to amend after expiration of a scheduling order deadline, the
moving party must show good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) for seeking leave to amend
outside of the deadline established in the Court’s scheduling order, in addition to the Rule 15(a)
standard for allowing a party to amend a pleading. Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank
Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014). “In practice, this standard requires the movant to show

4

the ‘scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite [the movant’s] diligent efforts.’” Id. at 1240
(quoting Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2001)). The good
cause requirement may be satisfied “if a plaintiff learns new information through discovery or if the
underlying law has changed.” Id. at 1240.
Plaintiff argues that she has obtained additional discovery since the filing of her first motion
to amend (Dkt. # 48), including expert reports, that would support a conclusion that the subject
aircraft was defective due to a repair kit installed by HBGCS. Dkt. # 82, at 5. She could also be
alleging that HBGCS could be liable for failing to remedy a defect with the landing gear while the
aircraft was in the possession of HBGCS for other repairs. See id. at 2-5. Plaintiff claims that she
could not have filed a motion to amend seeking leave to add a claim of manufacturer’s products
liability against HBGCS without additional discovery, and she asserts that she was required to file
multiple motions to compel to obtain the necessary discovery. Dkt. # 89, at 4. This discovery
included investigations of two additional Beech Premier 390 aircraft and the production of an
exemplar installation kit used to repair the electrical bus.
The Court will initially consider whether plaintiff has shown good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)
for her failure to file her second motion to amend within the deadline contained in the scheduling
order. The new discovery cited by plaintiff does not support her untimely request to amend and it
is clear that she knew the essential facts supporting her proposed manufacturer’s products liability
claim against HBGCS when she filed her first motion to amend or perhaps earlier. In plaintiff’s first
motion to amend, she sought leave to include allegations that the landing gear was defectively
designed and that kit installed by HBGCS to repair the electrical bus was defective. Dkt. # 48, at
7. She claimed that the she learned about the landing gear defect on September 23, 2015 when she

5

was able to inspect a Beech Premier 390 aircraft, and she claimed that she needed additional
discovery after the applicable scheduling order deadline to clarify that the repair kit could have been
the cause of the electrical bus defect. Id. at 5, 7. The Court found that plaintiff had established that
she diligently sought discovery on these matters and that she could not have filed her motion to
amend before the deadline to file motions to amend or add parties expired. Dkt. # 59, at 6-7.
Plaintiff relies on the same defects with the landing gear and the electrical bus repair kit to support
her proposed manufacturer’s liability claim against HBGCS, and it is clear that plaintiff had
sufficient knowledge of these facts when she filed her initial motion to amend. The additional
discovery obtained by plaintiff may have confirmed the allegations included in her amended
complaint, but she has not shown that she learned anything new in discovery obtained after she filed
her amended complaint.1 Plaintiff cites ongoing discovery disputes and claims that she still has not
received an exemplar of the kit used to repair the electrical bus, and she claims that she needed to
determine the validity of a manufacturer’s products liability claim against HBGCS before seeking
leave to amend. Dkt. # 89, at 3. Plaintiff effectively made this representation to the Court when she
filed her initial motion to amend to include the same factual allegations that she now claims support
her proposed manufacturer’s liability claim against HBGCS, and she has not acted diligently by
filing a second motion to amend nearly six months after the deadline to file motions to amend
expired.

1

In particular, the Court notes that her subsequent examinations of two Beech Premier 390
aircraft confirmed the results of the September 23, 2015 examination that there was an
alleged defect with the landing gear due to the amount of force required to lower the landing
gear. Dkt. # 82, at 2-3. It does not appear that the November 5, 2015 or the January 28,
2016 examinations provided any new or different information on this issue.
6

Even if the Court had found that plaintiff had shown good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), the
Court would not find that plaintiff has established that leave to amend should be granted under Rule
15(a). See Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C., 771 F.3d at 1240 (a party seeking leave to amend after a deadline
in the scheduling order has expired must show that requirements of Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 15(a)
are satisfied). The Court has already determined that plaintiff has not acted diligently in filing her
second motion to amend, and for the same reasons the Court finds that plaintiff has no adequate
explanation for the delay in filing her motion to amend for the purpose of Rule 15. See Minter, 451
F.3d at 1206. Plaintiff also argues that defendants will not be prejudiced if she is permitted to file
a manufacturer’s products liability claim against HBGCS, because HBGCS will not need to conduct
additional discovery and HBGCS has been on notice since the case was filed of the facts supporting
this claim. Dkt. # 82, at 7-8. This calls into question why plaintiff did not seek to allege a
manufacturer’s products liability claim earlier, but plaintiff is also incorrect that it is certain that
defendant will not need to conduct additional discovery. HBGCS points out that comparative fault
is not a defense to a manufacturer’s products liability claim and it will be required to conduct
discovery as to the different elements and defenses available for such a claim. Dkt. # 84, at 7. The
discovery cutoff is May 15, 2016 and it is likely that granting plaintiff’s second motion to amend
would result in a delay of the trial. Plaintiff has not provided any adequate explanation for the delay
in filing her second motion to amend to include a manufacturer’s products liability claim against
HBGCS and defendant will be prejudiced by granting plaintiff’s motion. The Court finds that
plaintiff could not satisfy the standard for allowing an amendment under Rule 15. The Court finds
that plaintiff cannot satisfy the standards of Rule 16(b)(4) or Rule 15(a) for obtaining leave to file
her second amended complaint, and her motion (Dkt. # 82) should be denied.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Application to File Second Amended
Complaint and Brief in Support (Opposed) (Dkt. # 82) is denied.
DATED this 31st day of March, 2016.

8