California Federal Court Allows Plaintiffs To Reassert Products Liability Claims Despite Conflicting Admission

In 2011, a U.S. marine died from injuries sustained in a helicopter accident allegedly caused by faulty wiring to the landing gear.  The marine’s family brought various claims against numerous defendants, including a company responsible for maintaining the helicopter.  The complaint included ordinary negligence claims as well as product liability claims based on manufacturing and design defects.  The plaintiffs’ only product liability allegation against the maintenance company, however, consisted of an inclusive allegation that all defendants “did design, manufacture, assemble, install, inspect, repair, maintain, endorse, draft, test, franchise, supply, sell, lease, distribute and place into the stream of commerce the subject [] helicopter.”  The maintenance company argued this claim was too broad and should be dismissed.  The court agreed and dismissed the product liability claims, finding the plaintiffs’ “inclusive list of sixteen verbs alleged generally against all Defendants” failed to give the maintenance company fair notice of any specific product liability claims against it.  Nonetheless, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, noting the forgiving Ninth Circuit standard that a “district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”  Notably, the court found the plaintiffs could cure their overly broad pleading of manufacturing and design defects even though the plaintiffs’ complaint itself alleged that the maintenance company was responsible “solely for after-market maintaining and inspecting the helicopter.”