Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 10.5 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 302 Words, 2,014 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/9070/157.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify - District Court of Colorado ( 10.5 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 157

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 01-K-2056 UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., a New York corporation; PAUL LEADABRAND, an Idaho resident; and JEFLYN AVIATION, INC. dba ACCESS AIR, an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff, v. PILATUS BUSINESS AIRCRAFT, LTD, a Colorado corporation; PILATUS FLUGZEUGWERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a Swiss corporation, PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD, a Swiss corporation; PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA, INC., and DOES 1 through 500, Inclusive, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ________________________________________________________________________ KANE, J. This aviation products liability action is set for a two-week jury trial commencing June 11, 2007. The case is before me today on Defendant Pratt & Whitney Canada' s Motion to Amend Orders Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. 151), in which the Pilatus Defendants join. Specifically, Defendants ask me to amend my April 2, 2007 Order reaffirming the inapplicability of admiralty law to this case and my February 28, 2005 decision rejecting Defendants'assertion that Plaintiffs'claims are barred by the economic loss rule under admiralty law, U.S. Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Pilatus Business Aircraft, Ltd., 358 F. Supp.2d 1021 (D. Colo. 2005), to permit an interlocutory

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 157

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 2 of 2

appeal of those related issues. I reject the request as untimely given the approaching trial date and Defendants'delay in seeking leave to appeal a decision made over two years ago in this case, and as unwarranted in any event under the standards articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For these and the additional reasons set forth in Plaintiffs'Opposition brief (Doc. 155), the Motion to Amend Orders Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Doc. 151) is DENIED. Dated May 2, 2007. s/John L. Kane SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2