Management Activities, Inc. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 11 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 95-0144 JMI (CTx).,No. CV 94-8313 JMI (CTx).,No. CV 95-5946 JMI (CTx).,No. CV 95-5540 JMI (CTx).,No. CV 95-5542 JMI (CTx).,CV 94-8313 JMI (CTx).,CV 95-0144 JMI (CTx).,CV 95-5540 JMI (CTx).,CV 95-5542 JMI (CTx).,CV 95-5946 JMI (CTx). |
| Citation | 21 F.Supp.2d 1157 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Garry L. Montanari, Gary LaPook, Wesley S. Wenig, Westlake Village, CA, Law firm: Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson, P.C., for plaintiff.
Robert J. Gross, Trial Attorney, Steven J. Riegel, Senior Aviation Counsel, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice and Mark B. Baylen, Federal Aviation Admin., for defendant.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
FOREWORD
This Order will dispose of litigation arising from a plane crash at John Wayne Airport in Orange County in December 1993. Succinctly put, a Westwind business jet with five people aboard encountered the turbulence created from a United commercial jet landing ahead of the Westwind. The Westwind crashed, killing all five people aboard. This action against the Government claims negligence on the part of FAA Headquarters as well as negligence by the Air Traffic Controllers at or near John Wayne Airport.
As will be seen, this Court concludes in Part III of this Order that the doctrine of Discretionary Function bars action against FAA Headquarters. The Court further concludes in Part IV that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove negligence on the part of any or all of the Air Traffic Controllers at or near John Wayne Airport.
As a result of these findings, this Court GRANTS Judgment for the Government.
This litigation arises from an aircraft accident at John Wayne Airport, Santa Ana, California, on December 15, 1993, at 1733:18 Pacific Standard Time, involving an Israel Aircraft Industries Westwind II business jet ("Westwind"), Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") registration number N309CK. At 0700 hours on the day of the accident, the Westwind departed Long Beach Airport to begin a multileg operation. After several intervening stops during the day, the aircraft arrived at Brackett Field, located in the northeast area of the Los Angeles basin, north of Pomona, California. In late afternoon, the Westwind crew prepared for the short 35-mile flight from Brackett Field to John Wayne Airport. They filed an Instrument Flight Rules ("IFR") flight plan, and obtained an instrument clearance from air traffic control ("ATC"). The Westwind was attempting to fly a visual approach to Runway 19-Right (19R) when it encountered wake turbulence from a preceding United Airlines Boeing 757 ("Boeing 757"), lost control, and crashed approximately 3.2 miles short of the runway. Both pilots and all three passengers aboard the Westwind sustained fatal injuries in the crash.
The Westwind was owned by Management Activities, Inc. ("MAI"), Long Beach, California, and jointly operated by MAI and Martin Aviation ("Martin"), Santa Ana, California, pursuant to a joint venture agreement. Martin is located at John Wayne Airport and is known in the aviation industry as a fixed-base operator.
The flight was an air-taxi passenger flight, operating under the provisions of 14 C.F.R. Part 135, and was transporting three corporate executives as passengers (Richard Snyder, Philip West and Jack Sims). The Westwind was flown by two professional pilots: Captain Stephen Barkin and Co-pilot John McDaniel. Mr. Barkin was employed by MAI and was acting within the scope and course of his employment. Mr. McDaniel was employed by Martin and was acting within the scope and course of his employment. In addition, both pilots held an airline transport pilot certificate, the highest pilot rating issued by the FAA, and were qualified to serve as Captain of the Westwind.
In the three months leading up to the crash, both Mr. Barkin and Mr. McDaniel had piloted the Westwind on numerous occasions into John Wayne Airport. Both pilots were very familiar with the Westwind aircraft and with John Wayne Airport.
This action against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), was tried before this Court over a 25 day period, beginning on October 28, 1997 and concluding on September 8, 1998. A total of nine cases have been consolidated in this action seeking damages against the United States for wrongful death and loss of property. Several of the cases were originally filed in state court against MAI and Martin. When MAI and Martin cross-claimed against the FAA in each suit, the actions were removed to Federal Court by the United States and eventually consolidated in this Court. All of the claims have been settled, except those brought by MAI/Martin against the United States.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction came before this Court for review on July 1, 1996.1 In said motion, the United States argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear certain claims relating to the alleged negligence of the FAA Headquarters, because such claims challenge discretionary functions for which the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). At that time the Court denied the motion to allow further factual development of the case to proceed. The Court initially divided the trial into phases and set the following order of presentation of evidence:
1. 757 Wake characteristics;
2. FAA Headquarters Negligence;
3. Air Traffic Controller Negligence;
4. Pilot or Aircrew Negligence;
5. Company Negligence; and
6. Damages.
Shortly after opening statements, the Court revisited the discretionary function issue as it relates to the FAA Headquarters alleged negligence. The Court ordered the parties to submit briefs that discuss the discretionary function doctrine in greater depth and this phase of the case was taken under submission. With respect to the FAA Headquarters Negligence phase, Defendant moves to dismiss all claims relating to the alleged negligence of the FAA Headquarters in classifying the aircraft weight category of the Boeing 757 aircraft, in formulating standards for the separation of aircraft, in failing to provide certain additional training to air traffic controllers and warning to the aviation community about the alleged increased hazards of wake vortices created by the Boeing 757, and in failing to undertake and supervise research concerning 757 wake turbulence.
With respect to the alleged Air Traffic Controller Negligence phase, the parties completed presentation of their arguments and materials during the 25 day Court trial.
Accordingly, the Court will address the issues presented with regard to the alleged FAA Headquarters Negligence and Air Traffic Controller Negligence.
A. LIABILITY OF FAA HEADQUARTERS
The United States moves for summary adjudication of negligence claims against the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Headquarters, arguing that those claims are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Central District of California Local Civil Rule 7.11, the Court dispensed with formal oral argument on the motion, and the Court took the motion under submission. The Court and counsel discussed the motion, on the record, during a number of in-chambers conferences during trial. After careful review, considering all pertinent papers on file, the arguments, and materials presented by the parties, the Court hereby GRANTS summary adjudication in favor of the United States on claims of FAA Headquarters negligence. The Court finds that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act shields the United States from liability for alleged negligence on behalf of FAA Headquarters.
The discretionary function exception is applicable only to the claims alleging FAA Headquarters' negligence. Pursuant to Central District Local Rule 9.8 and this Court's Order Re: Preparation for Pre-trial Conference, the Parties lodged a Joint Pre-trial Conference Order. The local rules state that the Pre-trial Conference Order shall control the subsequent course of the action and supersedes the pleadings. The first five claims in the Pre-trial Conference Order address negligence at the FAA Headquarters' level and state in pertinent part:
1. The FAA failed to warn the aviation community of known dangers of B-757 wake turbulence;
2. The FAA negligently failed to change the wake turbulence classification and separation standards as it committed to do in 1990;
3. The FAA failed to follow its commitment to update advisory and educational materials to alert pilots of the known dangers;
4. The FAA was negligent per se in violating 49 U.S.C. § 44505 and failing to develop systems and procedures to address the known hazards created by the B-757; and
5. The FAA was negligent per se in violating its own Order 1000.1A which required that the agency assume to implement safety improvements before incidents occur.
The above-listed claims fall within the scope of the present motion for summary adjudication with respect to FAA Headquarters negligence.
A motion for summary judgment provides a procedure for terminating without trial actions in which "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). It is the moving party's burden to show the district court that there is an absence of essential evidence to support the opposing party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The court must view the evidence presented in the motion in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). However, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. U.S.
...(10th Cir.1992)), aff'd, 112 Fed.Appx. 4 (11th Cir.2004) (unpublished table decision); see Mgmt. Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F.Supp.2d 1157 (C.D.Cal.1998) (same). "Necessarily, the pilot's knowledge of his own, his crew's, and his aircraft's capabilities and limitations, is of pre......
-
Hernandez ex rel. Telles-Hernandez v. U.S.
...606, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 396 (1999). 6. Plaintiff must prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. Mgmt. Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F.Supp.2d 1157, 1174 (C.D.Cal.1998). Preponderance of the evidence means "more likely than not." Sandoval v. Bank of Am., 94 Cal.App.4th 1378,......
-
Plante v. United States, Case No.: 13cv0310-GPC-KSC.
...31 Cal. 3d 220, 229-30 (1982). A plaintiff must prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. Mgmt. Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998); see also Hernandez ex rel. Telles-Hernandez v. United States, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 200......
-
I.P. v. United States, 2:13-cv-01012-JAM-CKD
...v. Nixen, 6 Cal.3d 195, 200 (1971) & Gami v. Mullikin Med. Center, 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 877 (1993)); Mgmt. Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998). B. Analysis 1. Negligence of Dr. Davainis a. Duty and Breach of Standard of Care Dr. Davainis breached a d......