Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

April 29, 2019

BOMBARDIER INC., Plaintiff,
v.
MITSUBISHI AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RULE 12(b)(7) RELIEF

          JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the court is Plaintiff Bombardier Inc.'s (“Bombardier”) motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7). (See Mot. (Dkt. # 106).) Specifically, Bombardier requests that the court dismiss Defendant Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation America, Inc.'s (“MITAC America”) counterclaims if purportedly necessary parties do not appear. (See generally id.; see also Countercl. (Dkt. # 105).) MITAC America opposes the motion (Resp. (Dkt. # 110)), and Bombardier filed a reply (Reply (Dkt. # 112)). The court has considered the motion, the parties' submissions concerning the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, [1]the court DENIES Bombardier's motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The court detailed this case's factual background in its prior order. (See 4/15/19 Order (Dkt. # 136) at 2-9.) In this order, the court recounts only the factual and procedural history salient to the instant motion.

         Bombardier is one of the world's leading plane manufacturers. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 2, 21.) On October 19, 2018, Bombardier brought suit against Defendants Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation (“MITAC Japan”), MITAC America, Aerospace Testing Engineering & Certification, Inc., Michel Korwin-Szymanowski, Laurus Basson, Marc-Antoine Delarche, Cindy Dornéval, Keith Ayre, and John and/or Jane Does 1-88, alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship and/or business expectancy. (See generally id.) Mr. Ayre and Mr. Delarche are MITAC Japan employees. (See Mot. at 4.)

         On January 28, 2019, MITAC America filed its answer to Bombardier's complaint. (Answer (Dkt. # 105).) In its answer, MITAC America asserted four counterclaims against Bombardier for violations of the Sherman Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“the CPA”). (Countercl. ¶¶ 92-124.[2]) At the time MITAC America filed its answer, MITAC Japan, Mr. Ayre, and Mr. Delarche had not yet appeared in this matter. (See 3/28/19 Notice of Appearance (Dkt. # 120); 4/3/19 Notice of Appearance (Dkt. # 121).)

         On January 31, 2019, Bombardier filed the instant motion for relief under Rule 12(b)(7). (See Mot.) Bombardier alleges that MITAC America failed “to name parties necessary to its asserted counterclaims as required by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 19.” (Id. at 4.) Specifically, Bombardier asserts that MITAC America failed to name MITAC Japan, Mr. Delarche, Mr. Ayre, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“MHI”), the corporate parent of MITAC Japan.[3] (Id.; see also Countercl. ¶ 4.) Bombardier asks the court to dismiss MITAC America's counterclaims if these parties “do not appear in this case within fourteen (14) days of the Court's adjudication of this motion.” (Id.)

         Since Bombardier filed its motion, MITAC Japan, Mr. Delarche, and Mr. Ayre have appeared in this case. (See 3/28/19 Notice of Appearance; 4/3/19 Notice of Appearance.) Accordingly, Bombardier's motion is moot as to these Defendants. The court therefore only addresses Bombardier's motion as it pertains to MHI.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Necessary Party Under Rule 19

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), a party may move for relief for “failure to join a party under Rule 19.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 entails a three-step inquiry. See Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779-80 (9th Cir. 2005)):

1. Is the absent party necessary (i.e., required to be joined if feasible) ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.