Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 1 of 17
1 WALTERJ. LACK" ESO.(SBN57550)
LIPSCOMB. LACK & 2 ENGSTROM,
J
AttorneyaiLaw (SBN 90305) ELIZABETHL. CROOKE,
A Professional Corporation 16th MonicaBoulevard, Floor 10100 Santa -4107 90067 LosAnseles. California 4 PH: (3f0) 552-3800 FX: (3l0) ss2-9434
5 6 Attornevs Plaintiffs for 1 8 9
DISTRICTCOURT TINITEDSTATES NORTHERNDISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. C 07 4902(MEJ) James] to fAssigned theHon.Maria-Elena from Superior Courtof lRemoved Californiafor the Countvof San Francisco, Case CGC-07-4651331 No. NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICEOF SUMMONS
10 11
GLINDIII" Individually, GEORGE ANd thEADMINISTRATOR OT AS I2 THE ESTATEOF GREGGI.JND.
13
GUND III); from'GEORGE divorced ' GEORGEGUND IV, an individual; t4 andGG AIRCRAFT, LLC,
15 t6 l7
VS.
fiiEo blrND i" i'ittiu"id"J, r^u"d
Plaintiffs, PILATUSAIRCRAFT,LTD.; LTD.: PRATT & WHITNEY
1 8 PILATUSBUSINE,S AIRCRAFT. S t 9 CANADA CORP.: andDOES1 20 21 22
through30, inclusive,
Defendants.
ESQ.,MCDERMOTTWILL & EMERY, A. ROSSMAN, 23 TO JEFFREY BEHALF OF DEFENDANT,PILATUS 24 ATTORNEYSOF RECORDON
2 5 AIRCRAFT,LTD. 26
PILATUS AIRCRAFT,LTD. A copy against A lawsuithasbeencommenced
Court is to 27 of the Complaint attached this notice. It hasbeenfiled in theUnitedStates DocketNo. C074902 and Districtof California hasbeenassigned 2 8 for theNorthern
NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND WAIVER OF SUMMONS
CASENO. CO749O2MEJ
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 2 of 17
MEJ. This is not a formal summonsor notification from the court, but rather my requestthat you sign and return the enclosedWaiver of Service in order to savethe and an additionalcopy of the Complaint. cost of servingyou with a judicial summons The cost of servicewill be avoidedif I receivea signedcopy of the waiver within 30 is below as the dateon which this Notice and Request daysafter the datedesignated for sent. An extra copy of the waiver is also attached your records. If you comply with this requestand return the signedwaiver, it will be filed will be servedon you. The actionwill thenproceedas with the court and no summons if you had been servedon the datethe waiver is filed, exceptthat you will not be below as obligatedto answerthe complaintbefore60 daysfrom the datedesignated is the date on which this notice is sent (or before 90 days from that dateif your address not in anyjudicial district of the United States.) If you do not return the signedwaiver within the time indicated,I will take appropriatestepsto effect formal servicein a mannerauthorizedby the FederalRules of Civil Procedureand will then, to the extent authorizedby thoseRules, ask the court to to requireyou (or the party on whosebehalf you are addressed) pay the full costsof pleasereadthe statement the concerning duty of suchservice. In that connection, parties to waive the service of the sufirmons,which is set forth at the foot of the waiver form' ' 4k ' I affirm that this requestis being sentto you on behalf of Plaintiffs, this ) Ou]l
of October.2007.
MB & LACK
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND WAIVER OF SUMMONS
CASENO. C07 49O2MEJ
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 3 of 17
WALTERJ. LACK, ESQ.(SBN57550) ELIZAS_ETH QKQQKE;$.tJon1ey Law (SBN 90305) L., ai 2 ENGSTROM. LIPSCOMB- LACK & A Professiondl Corporation a J 10100 Santa Monicla Boulevard. Floor 16th -4L07 Los Anseles. California 90067 4 PH: (3f0)552-3800 FX: (310)ss2-9434
I
5
6 Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
R
IINITED STATESDISTRICT COURT DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN CASE NO. C 07 4902(MEJ) to James] [Assigned" the Hon. Maria-Elena from Superior Courtof fRemoved Californiafor the Countvof San Francisco, Case CGC-07-4651331 No. WAIVER OF SERVICE SUMMONS OF BY DEFENDANT.PILATUS AIRCRAF'T. LTD.'
9 10
andasthe ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATEOF GREGGUND: 12 THEOGLIND.an individual.(and from'GEORGE GUND III); 1 3 divorced GTINDIV. an individual:' GEORGE 1 4 aNdGG AIRCRAFT; LLC,
15 t6
VS.
GLINDIII. Individuallv. 1 1 GEORGE
Plaintiffs,
T 7 PILATUSAIRCRAFT"LTD.: 1 8 LTD.: PRATT & WHITNEY
t9
PILATUSBUSINESS AIRCRAFT. CANADA CORP.:andDOES1 through inclusive, 30,
Defendants.
20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-WILL i, JEFFREYA. ROSSi\4Ai\i, ESQ.OF ivicDERtuIOTT & EiviERY, attorneys recordfor defendant, of PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD., acknowledge receipt of yourrequest I waiveservice summons the actionof GUND,ET AL. V. that of in PILATUSAIRCRAFT,LTD., ET AL., which is case number 07 4902 (MEJ)in the C DistrictCourtfor theNorthern UnitedStates District of California. I havealsoreceived copyof the complaint the action, a in two copies this of instrument, a means which I canreturnthe signed and by waiverto you withoutcostto
WAIVER OF SUMMONS CASENO. C 07 49O2MEJ
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 4 of 17
1
me. I agree savethe costof service a summons an additional to of and copyof the in complaint this lawsuitby not requiring thatI (or the entityon whose behalfI am I (or the entityon whose behalfI amacting)will retainall defenses or based a defectin the summons in the service the summons. or objections on of
2
a J
provided Rule4. be with judicial process themanner in by 4 acting) served
5
to for 6 objections the lawsuitor to thejurisdictionor venueof the courtexcept I understand ajudgmentmaybe entered against (or the partyon whose that me
R
or uponyou 9 behalfI am acting)if an answer motionunderRule 12is not served 5,2007,or within 90 daysafterthatdateif therequest 1 0 within 60 daysafterOctober
1 1 wassentoutsidethe United States. t 2 Dated: 13 T4 15 I6 17 18
(slgnatureJ McDERMOTTWILL & EMERY Attornevsfor Defendant PILATUSAIRCRAFT.LTD.
Duty to Avoid UnnecessaryCosts of Service of Summons
Rule 4 of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure requirescertainpartiesto cooperate in savingunnecessary costsof serviceof the summonsand'complaint.A defendant loiated in t 9 the Ljiited States who. after beine notified of an action and aiked bv plaintiff locatedin the Statesto waive service of-summons,fails to do so will be refiriired to bearthe cost of United 20 such serviceunless good causebe shown for its failure to sign and return the waiver. 21 It is not good causefor a failure to waiver service that a oartv believesthat the complaint is unTounded, that the action has been brought in an improper place or in a court or 22 that lacks iurisdiction over the subiec*u matter of the actiolnor ever its persodor propeitv. A (eicebt anv party who waives serviceof the su-mmons retainsall defenses obi'ections and 23 iela[ing to the swnmonsor to the serviceof the summons), and may later objebtto the jurisdi6tion of the court or to the placewhere the actiontias beenbi'ought. 24 A defendantwho waives servicemust within the time specified on the waiver form 25 serveon plaintiff s attorney(or unrepresented plaintiffl a response the comnlaintandmust to alsofile d sienedcopy of the'response with thii court. if the inswer or motion is not served 26 within this tlme, a dbfault may be taken againstthat defendant.By waivins service iudgrnent is a defendant ailowed moie time to answerthan if t]hesummons had beena"ctually sdrved 27 when the requestfor waiver of serviceis received. 28
WATVER SUMMONS OF
CASENO. C 01 49O2MEJ
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 5 of 17 -?@ffisM
(SBN57550) 1 WALTER LACK,ESQ. J.
2 ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB LACK & -4107 Los Aneeles. California90067 :j532--:Toti 4 PH: (3IOi ss2-3800 (310) PH: SSZ-3gOO 5 3
Aqtomey Law(SBN90305) ELIZABETHL. CB.Q_OKE, at A Professional Corporation
sara rruo#"nf *" "h",H*ff.*, * JUt I s e00/
Clerk
Lg:TJ_?t1%:lil*ff $ffetlalSthF'o$sMANAm{H{rc0NFtrwffi snr
oEC 42A07.gsAlJf I
FX: (310) ) ss2-9434
6 Attornevsfor Plaintiffs
I
mmmrn
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
8 9 10 11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LINLIMITEDIURISDICTION
REPRESENTATIVE asthePERSONAL OF GREGGUND: 1 3 OF THE ESTATE (and THEOGLTND, individual, an from GEORGE divorced CUND); 14 GI-INDIV, anindividual; and GEORGE LLC, 1 5 GGAIRCRAFT,
1 a
III, and L 2 GEORGECTIND Individually,
CASE GS-97 _f 6 5 L35 No*
COMPLAINT FOR SURVIVAL DAMAGES,WRONGFULDEATH, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND II\DEMNITY IDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
lo
Plaintiffs, vs. BUSINESS AIRCRAFT, LTD.;PRATT
7 a T I
1 8 PILATUSAIRCRAFT, LTD.;PILATUS I 9 & WHITNEY CANADA CORP.: and DOESI *rough 30,inclusive, 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. Plaintiffs complainof defendants allegefor causes actionas follows: and of GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs do not know the truenamesandcapacities Defendants of sued hereinas Defendants.
by pursuant to 26 Does l-30, inclusive, and thereforesue said Defendants such fictitious names to 27 Califomia Codeof Civil Procedure,Section474. Plaintiffs will amendthis Complaint state 2 8 the true names and capacities of the fictitiously-named Defendantswhen the same are I
@PFDektop\::ODMA/PCDOCS/ELLHMDD{/290698/l
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 6 of 17
I
ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that each of the
2 fictitiously-namedDefendantsis legally responsiblein somemannerfor the eventsanddamages
a J
of allegedin this Complaint under the causes action statedherein. 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times
4
5 mentionedherein, eachof the Defendantswas the agent,partner,joint venturer,associate and/or 6 employeeof one or more of the other Defendantsand was acting in the courseand scopeof such agency,partnership,joint venture, associationand/or employment when the actsgiving rise to 8 the causeof action occurred. 9 3. At all times mentioned, defendantsPilatus BusinessAircraft, Ltd. and Does 1
1 0 through 5 were and are Colorado corporations,doing businessin the Stateof California. 11 4. At all times mentioned,defendantsPilatus Aircraft, Ltd and Does 6 through 10
1,2 were and are foreign corporations,doing businessin California. T3 5. At all times mentioned,PilatusAircraft, Ltd., by andthroughits agents,and Pilatus
t 4 BusinessAircraft, Ltd., awholly owned subsidiaryincorporatedin ColoradoandDoes I though 1 5 10 (collectivelyret-erredto hereafteras "PILATUS") were and are doing substantial business in 1 6 and had contacts with the State of Califomia sufficient to justifu this Court's exercise of l 7 jurisdiction over these defendants. 18 Pratt& Whitney Canada Defendants At all times mentioned, Corp.("PRATT") and 6. 19 Does I I through 15 are foreign corporations,doing businessin California. At all timesrelevant, 20 business andhadcontacts in PRATT and Does 11 through 15were and aredoing substantial with 2T the State of California sufficient to justify this Court's exercise of jurisdiction over these 22 defendants. 23 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevanttimes, 7. 24 DefendantsPILATUS and Does I - 10, inclusive, and each of them, were in the businessof 25 inspecting,testing,certifuing, marketing,disfributingand designing,manufacturing,assembling, 26 selling general aviation aircraft in the United States. The United StatesFederal Aviation 27 Administration has issuedType CertificateNo. 7A15 for Pilatus PC-6 model aircraft of varying 28 configurations. 2
@PFDektop\::ODMA/PCDOCS,LLHMDM290698/ I
COMPLAINT F'ORDAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 7 of 17
1 2
a J
8.
In particular, PILATUS and Does I - 10 designed, manufactured, assembled,
inspected, tested, distributed sold a PilatusPC-6TurboPorteraircraft, and certified,marketed, Aviation Administration N908PL(the"AccidentAircraft"). serialnumber908,Federal No.
9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevanttimes,
4 5 6
DefendantsPRATT and Does 11 - 15, inclusive, and each of them, were in the businesso
manufacturing, inspecting,testing, designing, assembling, certifying, marketing, distributing and parts, sellingfurbo-prop engines their component and modules controlunits,for installation and
8 9
in aircraft,includingthe PilatusPC-6TurboPorteraircraft.
10. In partic.ular, the PRATT Defendants designed, manufactured, assembled,
10 11 T2 13 T4 15 T6 l7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25
inspected,tested, certified, marketed, repaired, distributed and sold the PT6A-27 turbo-prop engine,serialnoPC-E42736(the"Accident Engine"),which wasinstalledin PilatusPC-6,serial number 908, Federal Aviation Administration NO. N908PL. The F.A.A. has issuedType Certificate No. E4EA for the PT6A series of powerplants, installed in aircraft in the United States.
parts 1 1 . At all dmesherein mentioned, Aoeidcnt ftc Engine, inelu-ding eomponent its
modulesand control units. was in substantiallvthe samecondition that it was in when it left the manufacfurer and the manufacturer's representatives. It had not been materially changed altered from the time that it was manufactured, delivered and certified airworthy by defendants.
12.
Defendants PILATUS, PRATT and Does I through 15 wrote, issued
instructions, letters, approved manuals, notices warnings, in some service bulletins, and and cases failed to issue such instructions,letters,bulletins, notices and warnings,and established maintenance manuals,maintenance instructions, servicebulletins,inspection schedules and servicelife schedules, furtheralleged as below. 13. At all times hereinmentioned, Defendants, eachof them, were in the all and
manufacturing, testing,maintaining, repairing, of modifying,assembling, 26 business designing, inspecting, warrantying, advertising, marketing, distributing sellingaircraftand and 27 serr,'icing, parts,modulesand controlunits, includingthe Accident and component 28 furbo-propengines
:ODMA,/PCDOCS/ELLHMDt!t/290698/l @PFDektop\:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 8 of 17
1 Aircraft and Accident Engine, for the carriageand transportationby air of crew andpassengers. 2 14. Defendantsknew, or in the exerciseof reasonablecare should haveknown,
that
a J
their aircraft andturbine engines,and componentparts,modulesand control units would be used
4 in the same manner for which they were designed and manufactured, for the carriage and 5 transportationby air of crew and passengers,and would be used accordingto the manualsand 6 instructionspublished by defendants. 15. 8 9 10 11 t2 13 t4 l5 t6 T7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On or about July 16, 2005, while being used for the purposefor which it was
designed,the Accident Engine and Accident Aircraft failed catastrophicallyin flight near Playa Flamingo, CostaRica, causingthe Accident Aircraft to crash, and resulting in i{uries andthen deathsof all of the occupants. 16. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and aliege that the failure was the
result of the defective design, manufacture, testing, inspection and assemblyof the Accident Aircraft and the Accident Engine.
L7.
Plaintiff GEORGE GUND III bringsthis actionfor wrongtuldeath,individually,
in asSuccessor Interest,andasPersonal Representative the Estate GregGund,deceased. of of Plaintiff GEORGEGUND III is the survivingfatherof Greg Gund. Plaintiff THEO GUND is the survivingmotherof GregGund,deceased. PlaintiffsGEORGEGUND III andTHEO of GUND are residents California. GEORGEGUND IV is the survivingbrotherof Greg GregGundhad neitherspouse childrensurvivinghim. Gund,deceased. nor 18. Onor about July 16,2005,Greg Gundwas pilot aboard Accident the the Ai
asit wasbeing flown at or nearPlayaFlamingo,CostaRica, whenit crashed causing serious, painfulandultimatelyfatalinjuriesto GregGund,andcausing plaintiffsto sustaindamages the within the Stateof California. L9. As a resultof the foregoing,GregGund sufferedpre-impact horror, fear and
terror, pain and suffering,physicalinjury, pre-death fear and terror, andwas otherwise u4uredin a personal pecuniary and manner. 20. Also killed in the crash werethe otheroccupants the AccidentAircraft. of
@PFDskop\: :ODMA,iPCDOCS/ELLHMDN'/290698/1
COMPLAINT F'ORDAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 9 of 17
1
2I.
On or aboutJuly 16, 2005,the AccidentAircraft was ownedby PlaintiffGG
2 Aircraft, LLC, a DelawareCorporation with its principalplaceof business SanFrancisco, in
J
California. As a resultof the crash, AccidentAircraft was a total loss. the 22. A probate proceeding commenced the Superior was in Courtof California the for
4
) 6
Countyof Santa Cruz. Plaintiff George GundIII wasappointed the Special as Administrator o the Estate GregGund. of
23. As a result ofthe foregoingandthe mattershereinalleged,plaintiffs have susta
7
8 economicandnon-economic damages, funeralandburial expenses, propertydamage all other and 9 damagesavailable by law. 10 11 I2 13
FIRST CAUSEOF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS PILATUS. PRATT AND DOES 1-15 (NEGLIGENCE ALLEGATIONS) 24. Plaintiffsreallege incorporate reference and by eachandeveryallegation and
T 4 statement inparcgraphs through23aboveasif fully setforth. contained I 15 25. At all timeshereinrelevant,
it wasthe duty of defendants PILATUS,PRATT
t 6 andDOES I through15, includingtheir officers,agents employees, exercise and to ordinary 17 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
carein the design, testing,manufacture, assembly, inspection, certification, sale,distribution,
maintenance, repair,servicing, developing issuinginstructions, wamings, and and including serviceintervals, inspection intervalsandlife limits regarding AccidentAircraft andits the components, includingthe AccidentEngine,so asnot to cause irjn y to or the death those to who usedthe products. 26. Notwithstanding theseduties,defendants PILATUS, PRATTandDOES1
through15breached their dutiesin the design, testing,manufacture, assembly, certification, inspection, sale,lease, distribution, maintenance,repair, servicing, developing issuing and instructions and warnings, includingservice intervals, inspection intervals life limits and regarding AccidentAircraft andits components, the includingthe AccidentEngine.
@PFD6ktop\::ODMA,/PCDOCS/ELLHMDt\it290698/l
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 10 of 17
I
27.
Plaintiffsareinformed,believeandallegethat defendants PILATUS,PRATT
2 andDOES 1 through15negligently designed andlormanufactured and/ordistributed the
J
ccident Aircraft and its components,including the Accident Engine,by utihzing a designand
4 materialsprone to prematurefailure of certain componentsduring normal and foreseeable 5 operations. That failure mode would not have been detectedin the ordinary courseof pre6 flight inspection or otherwise. 7
28.
Defendants PILATUS,PRATT andDOES 1 through15,asthe designers and/or
8 manufacturers and./or distributors of the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine,had a duty to 9 10 11 t2 13 vide adequate wamings, instructions,training materials and maintenance and inspection ures and intervals for the Accident Aircraft and the Accident Eneine to ensuresafe ion of the Accident Aircraft in normal flight, and they failed in that duty. 29. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and allege that defendants were requiredto
vide certain warnings, instructions,training materials and maintenanceand inspection
t 4 intervals and proceduresto operatorsof the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engineto enable 15 to determinethe airworthinessand proper operation of the Accident Aircraft and t6 T7 18 I9 20 2T 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ident Engine. Defendantsfailed to warn, instruct, train and/or issueadequate maintenance inspectionproceduresand other instructionsregarding such dangersand/orissued inadequate warnings, instructions,training materialsand maintenanceand inspection
andintervals. 30. On or aboutJuly 16,2005,asa directandproximate resultof oneor more
actsor omissions defendants of PILATUS, PRATT andDOES 1 through15,the AccidentAircraft suffereda catastrophic failurein flight thatresulted its crash. in 31. GregGundwasawarethathe hadbeenplacedin imminentandhopeless peril
andhe apprehended graveanddire circumstances which he hadbeenthrust. As a result, the in
ival damagesare warranted on behalf of the plaintiffs.
32.
On or aboutJuly 16,2005, a directresultof the aforesaid as conduct the of
fendants PILATUS, PRATT andDOES I through15,andeachof them,decedent Greg sufferedfatal injuries,andasa result,plaintiffs wereinjuredanddamaged herein as
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
| @PFDcktop\::ODMATPCDOCS/ELLI{1,1DI4i290698/
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 11 of 17
I
egedand accordingto proof attrial. 33. As a direct result of the conduct of the Defendants,and eachof them,plaintiffs
2
a J
havebeen deprived of the supportthat Greg Gund would have contributed to his family and tate during his lifetime, and the gifts and benefits that he would have bestowedupon them that they reasonablyexpectedto receive from him. 34. As a further direct result of the conduct of Defendants.and eachof them.
4 5 6
protection, laintiffs have been deprived of the love, care,companionship,comfort, assistance, 8 9 10 11 T2 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS PILATUS, ffection, society,moral support and guidanceof Greg Gund. 35. Plaintiffs have therefor been damagedin amountsto be proven at time of trial.
PRATT AI\D DOES 1-15 (STRTCT LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS)
and by eachandeveryallegation 3 6 . Plaintiffsreallege incorporate reference and
I 4 tatement inparagraphs through23and25through34 above if fully setforth. 1 as contained 15 I6
37.
PILATUS.PRATT Plaintiffsareinformed.believeandalleeethat defendants
nd DOES 1 through 15, and eachof them, designed,manufactured,fabricated,converted,
t 7 maintained,repaired,modified, designed,assembled, distributed, certified, sold, inspected, 18 erviced,repaired,marketed,warranted,and advertisedthe Accident Aircraft and the Accident 19 part
Engine,andeachandeverycomponent 38.
thereof.
20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants wererequired design AccidentAircraft andthe Accident to the
ine, including all service,maintenance and operationsmanualsso that they were free from gn and manufacturing defects,and were required to design and manufacturean engineand
framethat would not fail in flight. 39. Defendants wererequired providecertainwarnings, to instructions, training
materialsand maintenanceand inspectionintervals and proceduresto operatorsof the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine to enablethem to determinethe airworthinessand proper operation of the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine. Defendantsfailed to warn, maintenanc; and inspection proceduresand other instruct, train and/or issueadequate
I @PFDsktop\:ODMA./PCDOCS/ELLHMDIW290698/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 12 of 17
I instructions regarding suchdangers and/or issued inadequate warnings, instructions, training
2 materials maintenance inspection procedures intervals. and and and
a J
40.
The AccidentAircraft andAccidentEnginewerecapable causing, in fact of and
4 5 6
id cause,catastrophicpersonalinjury and deathto usersand consumerswhile being used in a reasonablyforeseeable, therebyrendering the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine 'e and dangerousfor use by any consumeror user. 41. On or about July 16, 2005,the Accident Aircraft and Accident Enginewere
8 9 10 11 12 13 T4 15 t6 t7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ng used for the purposesand in the manner for which they were designedand nufactured,and in a mannerthat was reasonablyforeseeable defendants, They were in to samecondition without significant changefrom the original condition when sold and ivered by defendants. 42. The Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine were defective,not fit for their
purposesand unreasonablydangerous reasonof defective design,manufacture, by certification, maintenance,repair,modification, assembly,service,inspection, aming, instruction and saleon the part of defendants. 43. As a direct result of defectsin Defendants' design,manufacture,testing,
ification, maintenance,rcpair,modification, assembly,service,inspection,warning,
instruction saie,the AccidentAircraft andthe AccidentEngine,andeachandevery and
omponentpart thereof, containeddefects,as aforesaid,resulting in the crashof the Accident
Aircraft.
44. As a direct result of the defectsin the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine and
the conduct of defendantsPILATUS, PRATT and DOES I through 15, and eachof them, Greg Gund was killed, and as a result, plaintiffs were injured and damaged herein as
llegedandaccording proof at trial. to
@PFDektop\::ODMA,/PCDOCS/ELLHMDIW290698n
COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 13 of 17
1
2
a J
TIIIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FORWRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTSPILATUS. PRATT AND DOES 1-15 (BREACH OF WARRANTY ALLEGATIONS)
45. Plaintiffs reallegeand incorporateby referenceeach and every allegationand
4 5 6
-
1 tementcontainedin paragraphs through23,15 through 35 and 37 through34 aboveas if
llv setforth.
46. At the time the Accident Aircraft was certified, sold, servicedand delivered,
8 9 10 11 l2 t3 I4 15 t6 l7 18 T9 20 2T 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
gh and including July 16, 2005, defendants PILATUS, PRATT and DOES 1 through 15 that the Accident Aircraft and Accident ly and/orimpliedly warrantedand represented quality, fit ine, including their instructions and warnings, were airworthy, of merchantable safe for the purposesfor which they were designed,and free from defects. Defendants warrantedthat the instructions,warnings and maintenanceand inspectionprocedures intervals regarding the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine were adequate. 47. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and allege that at the time the Accident Aircraft
Accident Engine were sold, certified and delivered,through the date of the accident,the bndantsbreachedtheir warrantiesin that the Accident Aircraft and Accident Engine were quality, not fit and safe for the pu{posefor which tive, not airworthy, not of merchantable inspected,tested,sold, certif,red, serviced, were designed,manufactured,assembled, ired, maintained,and intendedto be used. Defendantsfurther breachedsaidwarrantiesin the instructions, warnings and maintenanceand inspection procedures and intervals were ot adequate. 48. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and allege that on the day of the accident,
Greg Gund was an intendedbeneficiary of the warrantiesextendedby the defendants.
49.
resultof the foregoing On or aboutJuly 16,2005,asa directandproximate
h of warranties,the Accident Aircraft failed in flight and crashed,killing Greg Gund, and a result, plaintiffs were injured and damagedas herein alleged and accordingto proof at ial.
:ODMA,/PCDOCS/ELLHMDN'290698/l @PFDsktop\:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 14 of 17
I 2
a J
FOURTH CAUSEOF ACTION FOR PROPERTY DAMAGES AND INDEMNITY AGAII\ST DEFENDANTS PILATUS. PRATT AND DOES 1,-15 (NEGLIGENCE) 50. Plaintiffsreallege incorporate reference and by eachandeveryallegation and
4 5 6
tementcontained inparagraphs through23 and25through30 aboveasif fully setforth. 1 51. As a resultof thenegligence Defendants, Accident of the Aircraftwasa total
loss to Plaintiffs GG Aviation LLC, and plaintiff has been damagedaccordingto proof attrial.
8 9 10 11
52.
As a result of defendants'negligencewhich led to the crash,plaintiffs have
incurred expenses the recovery of the wreckageof the Accident Aircraft and the victims of for
ho 'v ^ r o c h vrqurr, srrs f n r rvr qnr{ fha in.'ae+icafin..re investigatiOn + i- ^*^"-+nf Of + L o q.vvmvrrL, ur crlrLrrrrrLD + ^ L ^ pruvtrii .rr,- ^ ^ ^ i A ^ Lu uE
aL irlai,
^L +-:-1
53.
As a further result of defendants'negligencewhich led to the crash,plaintiffs
t2 13 T4 15 16 T7 18 19
ve or will incur expenses settlethe claims of other victims of the accident,which claims to uld be paid by defendants, who areat fault. Plaintiffs seek indemnity for thosepayments nd for their costs and legal expenses incurred, in amountsto be proven at time of trial. so
FIFTH CAUSEOF ACTION FOR PROPERTY DAMAGES AND INDEMNITY AGAINST DEFENDANTS PILATUS. PRATT AND DOES 1.15 (STRICT LIABILITY) 54. Plaintiffsreallege incorporate reference and by eachandeveryallegation and
contained inparagraphs through23,25through30,37 through44 and51through I
20 53 aboveasif fully setforth. 2T 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
55.
As a resultof the defects the AccidentAircraft andthe AccidentEngine, in the
ccident Aircraft was a total loss to Plaintiffs GG Aviation LLC, and plaintiff hasbeen magedaccording to proof at trial. 56. As a result of the defectswhich led to the crash,plaintiffs have incurred
for the recovery the wreckage the AccidentAircraft andthevictimsof the of of
and for the investigation of the accident,in amountsto be proven attrial.
57.
As a furiherresultoithe deiects which ied to the crash, piaintiffshaveor wiii
ur expenses settlethe claimsof othervictimsof the accident, to which claimsshould be
10
I @PFDcktop\; ;ODMA,/PCDOCS/ELLHMDIV'/290698/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 15 of 17
1 2
a J
A
id by defendants,who are responsible. Plaintiffs seekindemnity for thosepaymentsand for ir costs and legal expenses incurred, in amountsto be proven at time of trial. so
+
5 6 7
SIXTH CAUSEOF ACTION FOR PROPERTY DAMAGES AND INDEMNITY AGAINST DEFENDANTS PILATUS. PRATT AND DOES 1-1.5 (BREACH OF WARRAI{TY)
58. Plaintiffs reallegeand incorporateby referenceeach and every allegationand
t contained paragraphsthrough in 1 23,25 through30,37 through44,46through 48
8 and51 through53 aboveasif fully setforth. 9 59. As a result of defendants'breaches warranty, the Accident Aircraft was a total of
i 0 loss to Plaintiffs GG Aviation LLC, and plaintiff has been damagedaccordingto proof at trial. 11 60. As a result of defendants'breachesof warranty which led to the crash,plaintiffs
I 2 have incurred expenses the recovery of the wreckageof the Accident Aircraft and the for 1 3 victims of the crash,and for the investigationof the accident,in amountsto be proven at trial. t4 15 61. As a further result of defendants'breachesof warranty which led to the crash,
intiffs have or will incur expenses settlethe claims of other victims of the accident, to
I 6 which claims should be paid by who are responsible. Plaintiffs seekindemnity for defendants, T7 paynents and for their costsand legal expenses incurred, in amountsto be proven at so
l o
-t6
of trial. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffsherebydemand atrnl by jury on all triableissues. PRAYER FOR RELIEF plaintiffs expressly WHEREFORE, reserve right to amend Complaint to and the the up
the time of trial to include all theoriesof recovery and items of damages yet not ertained,and demandjudgmentsagainstDefendantsas follows:
T9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
For general damages setforth hereinin a sumin excess thejurisdictionof as of this Courtandaccordins oroof: to
11
I @PFDektop\::ODMA/PCDOCS/ELLHMDI,V290698/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 16 of 17
I 2
a J
2. 3.
For special damages set forth herein and according to proof; as For damagesfor pain and suffering, mental anguish,psychologicaland emotional distress,and disfigurementand for pre-impact fear of death,in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, according to proof at the time of trial;
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 t6 17
1R
4. 5.
For funeral and burial expenses accordingto proof; For loss of earningsand loss of earningcapacity in an amount accordingto proof;
6. 7.
For damagesfor the loss of the Accident Aircraft, accordingto proof; For costsincurred in recoveryof the wreckage and of the victims of the crash, according to proof;
8.
For indemnify for any sumspaid or thatmay be paid to the families of the victims of the crash,and legal fees so incurred;
9.
For prejudgmentinterestaccordingto proof, to the extent authorizedby law;
1 0 . For costsof suit incurred herein; and, 1 1 . For such other and further relief as the Court deemsjust and proper.
DArED: tury{}a.oot
, LPSCOMB & LACK
19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
T2
@PFDsktop\: :ODMA/PCDOCS/ELLHMDIf/290698/I
ELIZABETH L. CROOKE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 3:07-cv-04902-VRW
Document 9
Filed 10/08/2007
Page 17 of 17
PROOF OF SERVICE ) COLINTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am emolovedin the Countv of Los Angeles,Stateof California. I am over the address I 0100Santa is ase of I 8 and hot'a partvto the within action;foy business 90067. Floor, Los Angeles,.CA Monica Boulevard,^16th as described On October 5, 2007 I servedthe foregoingdocuments r NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS in pa$y(ies),inthis,actionby placing a true copy thereofenclosed on the interested -addlessed as fbllows: sealedenvelopes Esq. JeffrevA. Rossman, McDeirmottWill & Emerv 227 W. Monroe Street IL Chicago, 60606-5096 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California. in suchenvelope the mail at I,os Angeles, I I BY MAIL: I deposited postasetliereonfullv prepaid. Th'eenvelooewas mailed with erivelopeby handto the offices l- I BY PERSONAL DELIVERY:-I deliveredsu-ch of the addressee. I I BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER: I causedall of the pasesof the above-entitled to doc"ument be sentto the recipientsnotedabovevia electiodictransfer(FAX) at the teleohonenumbersindicated. resoective documents overnight via I X I BY FEDERAL EXPRESS:I servedthe above-entitled placing a true copy thereofin a sealedenvelopein the inail'in said action by Expresspick-up. areafor Fe^
of I declare underpenalty perjuryu is the above trueandcbrrect. \
Yu"
(_-
that of California
NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND WAIVEROF SUMMONS
CASENO. CO149O2MEJ
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms