Getz v. Boeing Co.
654 F.3d 852
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- February 2007 MH-47E Chinook crash in Afghanistan killed eight, injured fourteen; plaintiffs are heirs and tort claimants against contractors Boeing, Honeywell, Goodrich, and ATEC.
- Plaintiffs originally filed in California state court; Boeing removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (Federal Officer Removal Statute).
- District court dismissed ATEC for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Boeing, Honeywell, and Goodrich on government contractor defense grounds (preemption of state-law claims).
- Plaintiffs appeal challenging Rule 4(k)(2) reach to ATEC and the applicability of the government contractor defense to the state-law claims.
- Court analyzes Rule 4(k)(2) arising-under-federal-law requirement and Boyle framework for government contractor defense, affirming district court on both issues.
- Convictions about the absence of federal-question claims and the presence of substantial federal involvement in design/testing are central to the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 4(k)(2) applicability to ATEC | Plaintiffs seek federal long-arm under Rule 4(k)(2) | Rule 4(k)(2) extends for federal claims with US-wide contacts; claims here are state-law | Rule 4(k)(2) does not apply; claims do not arise under federal law |
| Government contractor defense applicability | Contractors should be liable for state-law claims; no valid preemption | Boyle defense applies; government approved precise design specs and warnings; conformed to specs | Contractor defense preempts all state-law claims against Boeing, Honeywell, and Goodrich |
| Conformity and warnings under Boyle | Evidence shows potential latent defects; conformity not proven | Extensive government involvement and post-delivery testing show conformity; warnings provided via Operator's Manual | Conformity and warning elements satisfied; defense upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1988) (government contractor defense framework; three elements)
- World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 1996) (limitations of Rule 4(k)(2) to substantive federal claims)
- United States v. Swiss American Bank, Ltd., 191 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 1999) (roots of arisings-under analysis for Rule 4(k)(2))
- Snell v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 107 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 1997) (necessity of government engagement in design approval)
- Butler v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., 89 F.3d 582 (9th Cir. 1996) (continuous dialogue required for approval; defense applies with substantial review)
- Oliver v. Oshkosh Truck Corp., 96 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 1996) (warning-content discretion when government prescribes warnings)
- Kerstetter v. Pac. Scientific Co., 210 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2000) (conformity evidence through government involvement and acceptance)
- Miller v. Diamond Shamrock Co., 275 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2001) (manufacturing conformity after design approval)
- Harduvel v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 878 F.2d 1311 (11th Cir. 1989) (narrowing conformity to precise specifications)