1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 236 F.3d
  5. 236 F.3d 1137 (2001)
 

LUECK v. SUNDSTRAND CORP.

No. 99-15961.

236 F.3d 1137 (2001)

Klaus LUECK; Martin G. Alexander; Maree Gray; Ian Gray; Petra Gray; Elle Gray; Peter Roberts; William McGrory; Murray Brown; Dean L. Mason; John Austin; Shayne A. Blake; David S. Green; Robyn Keall, individually and as special representative of the Estate of Jonathan P. Keall; Jill Dixon, individually and as special representative of the Estate of Reginald Dixon; Barbara White, individually and as special representative of the Estate of David John White; Lucille White; Maxwell White; Paul John Cameron, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION; Honeywell Corporation; Hydraulic Units, Inc., dba Dowty Aerospace; Messier-Dowty International; Dehavilland, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed January 8, 2001.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Steven D. Copple, Copple, Chamberlin, Boehm, & Murphy, Phoenix, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Terry O'Reilly and Gary L. Simms, O'Reilly, Collins & Danko, Menlo Park, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

James H. Marburger, Gust Rosenfeld, Phoenix, Arizona, for defendant-appellee Sundstrand Corporation.

James A. Teilborg, Teilborg, Sanders & Park, Phoenix, Arizona for defendants-appellees Hydraulic Units, Inc., and Messier-Dowty International.

Thad A. Demeris, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, Texas, for defendant-appellee Messier-Dowty International.

Thad T. Dameris, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, Texas, for defendant-appellee Messier-Dowty International.

James W. Hunt and Alan H. Collier, Mendez & Mount, Los Angeles, California, for defendant-appellee Honeywell Corporation.

Edward R. Glady, Goodwin Raup, Phoenix, Arizona, for defendant-appellee deHavilland, Inc.

Richard Clark Coyle and Kevin C. Osborn, Perkins Coie, Seattle, Washington, for defendant-appellee deHavilland, Inc.

Before: Mary M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, Robert R. BEEZER and Richard A. PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2000 — San Francisco, California

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's dismissal of their suit on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs, citizens of New Zealand, are victims of an airplane crash in New Zealand, on a New Zealand carrier. Plaintiffs allege that the radio altimeter of the Ground Proximity Warning System ("GPWS") malfunctioned during flight and was a causal factor of the accident...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases