Olympic Air, Inc. et al v. Helicopter Technology Company et al

Filing 157

ORDER ON REED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS. The Reed plaintiffs' motion to dismiss their claims against HTC with prejudice and enter judgment dismissing their claims (Dkt. # 155 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims by the Reed plaintiffs against HTC, with each side bearing its own costs. Claims by Olympic Air, Inc., and Catlin Insurance Company, Inc. are not dismissed. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 OLYMPIC AIR, INC.; CATLIN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. Plaintiffs, v. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER ON REED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS HELICOPTER TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, et al., 14 15 Case No. C17-1257RSL Defendant. WILLIAM G. REED and MARY E. REED,. Plaintiffs, v. HELICOPTER TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on the Reed plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss their claims 23 against Helicopter Technology Company, Helicopter Technology Corporation, and Helicopter 24 Technology Company, LLC (collectively, “HTC”) with prejudice and enter judgment dismissing 25 their claims, or in the alternative, deconsolidate cases and enter final judgment in the Reed 26 plaintiffs’ case (Dkt. # 155). The Reed plaintiffs (William G. Reed and Mary E. Reed, and the 27 marital community composed thereof) recently settled their claims against their only remaining 28 defendant, HTC, and they plan to appeal the dismissal of their claims against former defendant ORDER ON REED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 1 1 MD Helicopters, Inc. (“MDHI”). Dkt. # 155 at 5. HTC did not respond to the Reed plaintiffs’ 2 motion, and the non-Reed plaintiffs (Olympic Air, Inc. and Catlin Insurance Company, Inc.) 3 filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. Dkt. # 156. 4 With respect to the Reed plaintiffs’ request for an order dismissing their claims against 5 HTC, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) governs this request, 1 and the “action may be dismissed at the 6 plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” The Reed 7 plaintiffs indicate that their settlement with HTC requires them to seek dismissal of their claims 8 against HTC. Dkt. # 155 at 5. The Court considers HTC’s lack of response to the Reed 9 plaintiffs’ motion “as an admission that the motion has merit.” LCR 7(b)(2). Accordingly, the 10 Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss their claims against HTC with prejudice. 11 Turning to the Reed plaintiffs’ request for entry of judgment dismissing their claims, the 12 Court agrees that “consolidation [does] not result in the merger of constituent cases.” Hall v. 13 Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1127 (2018). “Forcing an aggrieved party to wait for other cases to 14 conclude would substantially impair his ability to appeal from a final decision resolving his own 15 case.” Id. at 1128. 16 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Reed plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss their claims 17 against HTC with prejudice and enter judgment dismissing their claims (Dkt. # 155) is 18 GRANTED. 2 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing with prejudice all 19 claims by the Reed plaintiffs against HTC, with each side bearing its own costs. Claims by 20 Olympic Air, Inc., and Catlin Insurance Company, Inc. are not dismissed. 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) does not govern the Reed plaintiffs’ request because the opposing party 27 has served an answer in this matter, Dkt. # 46, and no stipulation of dismissal has been submitted. 28 2 The Court need not consider the Reed plaintiffs’ motion in the alternative regarding deconsolidation. ORDER ON REED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 2 1 DATED this 27th day of September, 2021. 2 3 4 5 A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER ON REED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?