Rodriguez v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24430
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- 81mm mortar cartridge exploded prematurely during live-fire Army exercise in Hawaii, killing Rodriguez and injuring Oyola-Perez, Riggins, and Dayandante.
- Army investigation identified possible causes (manufacturing defect, double-loading) but could not identify exact cause.
- Plaintiffs allege strict liability and negligence under Hawaii law; GD argues double-loading caused the explosion.
- GD moved for summary judgment on merits and on government contractor defense; district court denied both due to disputed facts.
- District court found expert opinions admissible and evidence created triable issues as to multiple possible causes and conformance with specifications.
- GD appealed only the denial of the government contractor defense; district court also denied stay of proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally valid | General Dynamics claims immunity from suit via the defense | Appeal lies under collateral order doctrine for immunity | Not appealable; contractor defense is not immunity; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether the government contractor defense provides immunity | Defense grants immunity from liability | Defense is not immunity, but a policy-based shield; depends on facts | Not immunity; defense not conferred as a matter of law |
| Whether denial of the defense is appealable under collateral order | Denial conclusively determines immunity | denial rests on disputed facts, not immunity | No collateral-order appeal; not final or separable from merits |
| Whether mandamus review is appropriate | Writ should resolve Boyle defense merits | Writ extraordinary; not justified here | Not warranted; no extraordinary circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (government contractor defense elements; design defects; reaffirmed jury question on applicability)
- Snell v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 107 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 1997) (applies government contractor defense to manufacturing defects)
- United States ex rel. Ali v. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, 355 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (government contractor defense does not confer sovereign immunity)
- Phillips v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation), 534 F.3d 986 (9th Cir.) (defense not well established when Price-Anderson Act enacted; limits applicability)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (collateral order doctrine justification for immediate appeal—immunity/right not to go to trial)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) (collateral order doctrine criteria: conclusively determine, separate from merits, reviewable now)
- Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 605 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits on appellate review of immunity where facts are disputed)
- Del Campo v. Kennedy, 517 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (notes government contractor defense not sovereign immunity; require facts)