Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

STEPHANIE RODRIGUEZ v. LOCKHEED MARTIN

November 30, 2010

STEPHANIE RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF J.C., A MINOR; SAMUEL OYOLA-PEREZ; JULIUS RIGGINS; NILDA MEYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILFREDO DAYANDANTE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION;
ALEXIS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; SOM-KSC COMMONWEALTH ALUMINUM SALES CORPORATION; JOHN DOE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, AND GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, Chief District Judge, Presiding D.C. No.1:08-cv-00189

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Opinion by Judge Callahan

FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Argued and Submitted August 9, 2010-San Francisco, California

Before: Susan P. Graber, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

18933

COUNSEL

Peter K. Batalden (argued) and Lisa Perrochet of Horvitz & Levy LLP, Encino California; J. Stan Sexton and Gregory L. Fowler of Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, Missouri; James J. Yukevich of Yukevich Calfo & Cavanaugh, Los Angeles, California; and Edmund Burke and John Reyes Burke of Burke McPheeters Bordner & Estes, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant-appellant General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc.

Ward K. Brown (argued) and David E. Larson of Withers, Brant, Igoe & Mullennix, P.C., Liberty, Missouri; and Dennis E.W. O'Connor, Jr. of O'Connor Playdon & Guben LLP, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellees Stephanie Rodriguez, Julius Riggins, Samuel Oyola-Perez, Nilda Meyer, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Wilfredo Dayandante.

Jonathan M. Hoffman and Joan L. Volpert of Martin Bischoff Templeton Langslet & Hoffman, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for amicus curiae The Product Liability Counsel.

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-appellant General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Inc. ("General Dynamics"), seeks to appeal from the district court's denial of its summary judgment motion in an action arising from the premature explosion of a mortar cartridge manufactured by General Dynamics during an army training exercise in Hawaii.*fn1 The explosion killed Oscar Rodriguez and injured Samuel Oyola-Perez, Julius Riggins, and Wilfredo Dayandante (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), the other soldiers in the training detail, who brought suit against General Dynamics alleging, inter alia, products liability and negligence claims under Hawaii law. General Dynamics moved for summary judgment on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims and also on the ground that the government contractor defense, first articulated in Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), barred Plaintiffs' claims. The district court denied both motions, holding that a genuine issue of material fact as to what caused the explosion precluded summary judgment. General Dynamics filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the portion of the district court's order denying summary judgment on the basis of the government contractor defense. General Dynamics contends that the government contractor defense confers an immunity from suit and that the denial of summary judgment may be reviewed immediately under the collateral order doctrine. We disagree and hold that the government contractor defense is not a grant of immunity. Accordingly, the denial of summary judgment is not immediately appealable, and we dismiss the appeal.

I.

A.

During a live-fire U.S. Army training exercise in Hawaii on March 10, 2006, an 81mm M374A3 HE (High Explosive) mortar cartridge exploded prematurely in the barrel of a mortar. Shrapnel from the explosion killed Staff Sergeant Rodriguez and caused serious injuries to Oyola-Perez, Riggins, and Dayandante.

Following the explosion, the Army conducted an investigation, which identified several possible causes of the explosion including material defects in the cartridge and a "double loading" scenario in which a cartridge was already in the tube when another cartridge was loaded. The Army's report concluded that "the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.