Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-03-1156., No. 1-02-3744 |
| Citation | 828 N.E.2d 726,293 Ill.Dec. 416,357 Ill. App.3d 723 |
| Parties | Katherine A. ELLIS, Special Administrator of the Estate of Imelda Patrocinio-Shoda, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AAR PARTS TRADING INC., f/k/a AAR Aircraft & Engine Group, Inc., and Fleet Business Credit, LLC, f/k/a Fleet Business Credit Corporation, f/k/a Sanwa Business Credit Corporation, Defendants-Petitioners. Jovy Layug, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Josefina T. Layug, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee (Patricia F. Piñol, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Josephine A Piñol, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees), v. AAR Parts Trading Inc., f/k/a AAR Aircraft & Engine Group, Inc., and Fleet Business Credit, LLC, f/k/a Fleet Business Credit Corporation, f/k/a Sanwa Business Credit Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago (Hugh C. Griffin, Gary W. Westerberg, Christopher R. Barth, Sarah H. Dearing, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Nolan Law Group, Chicago (Donald J. Nolan, William J. Jovan, of counsel); O'Reilly, Collins, Danko, San Mateo, CA (Terry O'Reilly, of counsel); Law Offices of Sterns & Walker, Oakland, CA (Gerald C. Sterns, of counsel); Law Offices of Bowles & Verna, Walnut Creek, CA (Michael P. Verna, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.
OPINION MODIFIED UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING
These consolidated appeals arise out of two lawsuits filed in the trial court on behalf of 113 plaintiffs who were Philippine decedents who died as a result of a plane crash on April 19, 2000, in the Philippines. The defendants, AAR Parts Trading, Inc. (hereinafter AAR), a parts company, and Fleet Business Credit, LLC (hereinafter Fleet), a financing company, filed motions to dismiss predicated on the doctrine of forum non conveniens in order to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated cases in Cook County, Illinois, so that the cases could be litigated in the Philippines. In this appeal, we are called upon to review two trial court orders: (1) the trial court's November 20, 2002, order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the "02L" Katherine A. Ellis (hereinafter Ellis) cases; and (2) the trial court's April 8, 2003, order denying AAR's renewed motion to dismiss Jovy Layug (hereinafter Layug) and Fleet's initial motion to dismiss Layug. The defendants' interlocutory appeals were filed on December 21, 2002 (the Ellis appeal) and on April 8, 2003 (the Layug appeal), pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (134 Ill.2d R. 306(a)(2)), and were consolidated on June 5, 2003, by the appellate court.
In 1978, the Boeing Company, located in Seattle, Washington, manufactured a Boeing 737 jet. In 1998, the Boeing 737 was purchased by AAR, an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. AAR leased the Boeing 737 to the Air Philippines Corporation. Later, AAR sold the Boeing 737 and assigned its rights, title and interests to Fleet, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.
On April 19, 2000, the Boeing 737 jet, Air Philippines Flight 541, crashed into a 577-foot-high hill, located in Samal Island, while on a domestic flight from Manila to Davao City in the Republic of the Philippines. At the time of the crash, Air Philippines Flight 541 was in the process of making a second attempt to land on the runway. Everyone on the flight, including seven crew members and 124 passengers, died in the crash.
On August 2, 2000, Layug filed a complaint as an individual plaintiff, against AAR. Layug is a resident of Cook County, but the decedent, her mother, was a resident of the Philippines. In the initial, one-count, products liability complaint, among other allegations, Layug alleged that the Boeing 737:(1) lacked proper and current manuals for operation, maintenance and/or repair; (2) was beyond its safe operational life expectancy; (3) was comprised of structures that were fatigued, cracked, corroded and otherwise in a condition that would likely lead to failure of the aircraft; and (4) contained a flap control system that was fatigued and likely to fail. Layug alleged that as a direct and proximate cause of these defective, unreasonably dangerous and unfit conditions, the aircraft crashed and caused the decedent to be fatally injured.
On September 19, 2000, Layug filed her first amended complaint, which contained three counts. In addition to the products liability count in her initial complaint, the plaintiff added count II based upon negligence, and count III for breach of warranty. On November 22, 2000, AAR filed its answer to Layug's first amended complaint, and on January 19, 2001, AAR filed a motion to dismiss based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 187. 134 Ill.2d R. 187. However, before the trial court could rule on AAR's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, Layug filed a second amended complaint on February 13, 2001, adding an allegation in the complaint that she had been appointed the administrator of the decedent's estate.
On August 17, 2001, the trial court denied AAR's motion to dismiss. The court ruled "that the moving defendant, [had] not met its burden as to the relevant factors for consideration" and that the private and public interest factors, "when viewed in their totality, did not strongly favor the suggested forum." AAR then filed a motion to reconsider and to clarify the court's order, which was also denied on October 25, 2001. The court ruled that AAR had failed to provide the court with changes in existing law or with any newly discovered evidence that was unavailable when the court ruled on the original motion to dismiss. AAR did not file an appeal from the trial court's October 25, 2001, order denying its motion to reconsider the motion to dismiss the Layug case.
On March 14, 2002, Layug filed a third amended complaint with new matters, including eight new counts: negligent entrustment, count I (wrongful death) and count II (survival action); strict products liability, count III (wrongful death) and count IV (survival action); Illinois common law of bailment, count V (wrongful death) and count VI (survival action); negligence, count VII (wrongful death) and count VIII (survival action); breach of warranty, count IX (wrongful death) and count X (survival action); and spoliation of evidence, count XI (damages). Fleet Business Credit, LLC, was also joined as an additional defendant.
One month later, on April 16, 2002, Layug filed a fourth amended complaint joining 32 new plaintiffs representing 53 decedents (hereinafter referred to as the Pinol plaintiffs and the complaints involving Layug and the 32 Pinol plaintiffs will be referred to as the Layug/Pinol plaintiffs' cases). The fourth amended complaint contained the same counts as those contained in the third amended complaint. On June 25, 2002, both AAR and Fleet filed answers to the Layug/Pinol plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint. Neither defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Layug/Pinol plaintiffs' complaint based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens within the 90-day period prescribed by Rule 187. 134 Ill.2d R. 187. However, before the 90-day period expired, on August 15, 2002, the Layug/Pinol plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint adding additional allegations to counts III and IV—strict products liability; count V—Illinois common law of bailment; and count XI—for spoliation of evidence.
On May 10, 2002, the defendants filed a joint motion to consolidate; the motion referred to 24 complaints with different case numbers, filed on behalf of 59 additional decedents who are the "02L" Ellis plaintiffs;1 and the motion sought to consolidate the "02L" Ellis cases with the Layug/Pinol cases. The motion to consolidate was granted on May 16, 2002, "for discovery purposes only." The "02L" Ellis cases were never consolidated with the Layug/Pinol cases for trial. On August 10, 2002, the "02L" Ellis plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On August 27, 2002, AAR and Fleet filed a joint motion to dismiss the "02L" Ellis plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on November 20, 2002, for the same reasons that AAR's motion to dismiss Layug's first amended complaint was denied in August 2001. On December 20, 2002, the defendants filed a joint petition for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (166 Ill.2d R. 306(a)(2)), from the November 20, 2002, order which was granted by the appellate court.
On November 26, 2002, AAR and Fleet filed a joint motion to dismiss Layug, the individual plaintiff's case, but not the 32 Pinol plaintiffs' cases, based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens.2 The motion was entitled "Defendant, Fleet Business Credit LLC's Initial Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Jovy Layug Set Forth in the fifth amended complaint Based Upon Forum Non Conveniens" (emphasis added) and "Defendant, AAR Parts Trading, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Jovy Layug Set Forth in the fifth amended complaint Based Upon Forum Non Conveniens" (emphasis added). In response to the defendants' joint motion to dismiss, Layug filed a motion to strike and objections to the defendants' joint motion to dismiss on December 6, 2002. Layug asserted that the "defendants' motions * * * [were] untimely and in violation of Supreme Court Rule 187 which requires that forum non conveniens motions must be filed `not later than 90 days after the last day allowed for the filing of that party's answer'." In reply, the defendants argued that Layug's motion to strike was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quaid v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
...stated in an affidavit that she was willing to appear voluntarily at trial in California. In Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., 357 Ill.App.3d 723, 293 Ill.Dec. 416, 828 N.E.2d 726 (2005), this court noted that "[i]f the case remains in Illinois, witnesses in the Philippines are not compelle......
-
Woodward v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
...of the court's inquiry is whether the case is being litigated in the most convenient county. Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., 357 Ill.App.3d 723, 740-41, 293 Ill.Dec. 416, 828 N.E.2d 726 (2005); Lambert v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 332 Ill.App.3d 373, 378, 265 Ill.Dec. 771, 773 N.E.2d 13......
-
Dowd v. Berndtson
...is only less, as opposed to none” (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., 357 Ill.App.3d 723, 742, 293 Ill.Dec. 416, 828 N.E.2d 726 (2005) (less deference does not equal no deference). See also Langenhorst, 219 Ill.2d at 448, 302 Ill.Dec. 36......
-
Vivas v. Boeing Co.
...plaintiff, burden was on defendant to show factors strongly favoring transfer to Australia); Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., 357 Ill.App.3d 723, 293 Ill.Dec. 416, 828 N.E.2d 726 (2005) (in product liability case where airplane crash was in Philippines with Philippine decedents, burden was......
-
Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal Of International Air Crash Case, But Don't Equate Pennsylvania With Cook County, Illinois (Just Yet)
...Dist. 2009); Thornton v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., No. 1-08- 2734 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 31, 2009); Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., 828 N.E.2d 726 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2005); Arik v. The Boeing Co., et al., No. 08 L 12539 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County Feb. 18, See, e.g., Tazoe v. Airbus......