Judge Tosses Production Companies' Lawsuit Over Plane Crash in Tom Cruise Flick
A federal judge in Atlanta said four production companies being sued along with the company that maintained the downed plane should wait until that litigation ends before seeking to be indemnified for any potential awards or judgments.
September 07, 2018 at 03:46 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Atlanta has dismissed a complaint filed by four movie-production companies hoping to dodge liability for a fatal plane crash tied to the filming of the Tom Cruise picture “American Made.”
In dismissing the lawsuit, where the production companies want to push liability onto the Georgia company responsible for the aircraft's maintenance, Judge Michael Brown of the Northern District of Georgia wrote that the underlying litigation is currently playing out in California.
“And no one knows what the outcome of that case will be,” Brown wrote. “No one can say if it is likely, unlikely, probable or improbable that plaintiffs will be liable.”
“American Made” starred Cruise as Barry Seal, a onetime TWA pilot who turned to drug and gun-smuggling for the Medellin Cartel. Seal was recruited by the Drug Enforcement Agency during the 1980s to try to capture cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar.
The underlying suit is one of several actions filed in California and Georgia after the twin-engine Smith Aerostar 600 crashed in the Andes when it ran into bad weather flying from Santa Fe de Antioquia, Colombia, to Medellin, Colombia.
The pilot, Carlos Berl, was killed along with Alan Purwin, a co-owner of the company that owned the plane, Heliblack. Jimmy Garland, CEO of the maintenance company S&S Aviation Inc. was seriously injured.
Berl and Purwin's families filed separate wrongful death suits in Los Angeles County Superior Court naming Cross Creek Pictures, Imagine Entertainment, Quadrant Pictures and Vendian Entertainment. Those are the same defendants in the lawsuit dismissed by Brown.
The production companies sued S&S in Georgia's Northern District last year, claiming the company failed to properly inspect and maintain the aircraft or to provide adequate instruction to the pilot.
The plaintiffs sought “total indemnity” for any legal fees and potential judgments or awards in the California litigation.
S&S sought to have the claims dismissed, arguing they were not ripe for adjudication, because “the outcome of this case depends on the outcome of at least one underlying state court action pending in California, which addresses the same issues as those in this case and which has been pending and hotly litigated” there.
Brown agreed in his Sept. 5 opinion and noted that another lawsuit the production companies filed against Heliblack in Gwinnett County was dismissed in June “because plaintiffs had not yet been found liable in the California action.”
“Although that case is on appeal, at least for now, it appears plaintiffs cannot bring a state claim for indemnification before actual liability arises from a judgment or settlement,” Brown wrote.
“The dismissal of the Gwinnett County action, though not binding on this court, supports this Court's conclusion that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs' claims are not justiciable.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Catherine Banich and Donald Anderson of Taylor English Duma, who declined to comment.
S&S is represented by Andrew King and Ted Lavender III of FisherBroyles in Atlanta, and Arthur Hankin, Elaine Solomon and Ethan Simon of Blank Rome in Philadelphia; they did not respond to a request for comment Friday morning.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
5 minute readFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250