AAA MAX 1 LIMITED, AAA MAX 2 LIMITED, AAA MAX 3 LIMITED, AAA MAX 4 LIMITED, AAA B787 2 LIMITED and AAA B787 3 LIMITED v. THE BOEING COMPANY

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01356
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 AAA MAX 1 LIMITED, AAA MAX 2 LIMITED, AAA MAX 3 LIMITED, AAA No. 2:23-cv-01356 RSM 10 MAX 4 LIMITED, AAA B787 2 LIMITED and AAA B787 3 LIMITED, STIPULATED MOTION FOR 11 LEAVE TO FILE SECOND Plaintiffs, AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 v. 13 THE BOEING COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 I. STIPULATED MOTION

17 Plaintiffs AAA MAX 1 Limited, AAA MAX 2 Limited, AAA MAX 3 Limited,

18 AAA MAX 4 Limited, and AAA B787 3 Limited (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant The

19 Boeing Company (“Boeing”) jointly request that the Court grant Plaintiffs leave to amend

20 Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. 67) to strike Plaintiff AAA B787 3 Limited as a

21 party in the case and withdraw its Claims II and IV relating to the 787 Dreamliner (MSN

22 63321), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and 16(b) in the above-captioned action. For

23 the reasons explained below, good cause exists to grant Plaintiffs leave to amend. See In

24 re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d

25 sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373, 135 S. Ct. 1591, 191 L. Ed. 2d 511

26 (2015) (noting that “when a party seeks to amend a pleading after the pretrial scheduling

STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 1 order’s deadline for amending the pleadings has expired, the moving party must satisfy

2 the ‘good cause’ standard”).

3 Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on March 12, 2024, asserting claims

4 related to two 787 aircraft, one purchased by Plaintiff AAA B787 2 Limited, and the other

5 purchased by Plaintiff AAA B787 3 Limited. Dkt. 67. On December 16, 2024, the Court

6 denied in part and granted in part Boeing’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 105. The Court

7 denied Boeing’s motion with regard to the claims asserted by Plaintiff AAA B787 3

8 Limited and granted the motion with regard to the claims asserted by AAA B787 2

9 Limited. Id. at 8, 10–11. On August 13, 2025, the Court granted in part Boeing’s motion

10 to sever (Dkt. 122) and ordered that trial would be bifurcated, with the jury hearing the

11 claims related to the remaining 787 aircraft and those claims related to the 737 MAX

12 aircraft in two separate trials. Dkt. 137. Plaintiff AAA B787 3 Limited now seeks to

13 withdraw its claims related to the remaining 787 aircraft (MSN 63321) because it believes

14 that pursuing those claims in a separate trial would be too inefficient and expensive. As

15 the deadline to amend pleadings has passed (Dkt. 86), the parties jointly request that the

16 Court grant leave for Plaintiffs to file the amended pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

17 Granting Plaintiffs leave to amend to remove Plaintiff AAA B787 3 Limited as a

18 party and its claims related to the 787 aircraft (MSN 63321) will promote efficiency and

19 reduce the burden on the parties and the Court. By granting leave, the Court will narrow

20 the issues for trial and alleviate the need for a second trial concerning only the 787

21 aircraft. Granting leave to amend will also eliminate the need for the parties to engage in

22 additional discovery related to the Plaintiff AAA B787 3 Limited’s claims. As the

23 proposed amendments narrow the issues in the case, Boeing is not prejudiced by the

24 amendments. Based on the foregoing, good cause exists to grant Plaintiffs leave to

25 amend.

STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 15(b), a redlined version of the second amended complaint

2 showing how it differs from the first amended complaint is attached to this stipulated

3 motion as Exhibit A.

4 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5 DATED this 23rd day of December, 2025.

6 McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC

7 By: s/ James G. Diehl Robert M. Sulkin, WSBA No. 15425 8 Malaika M. Eaton, WSBA No. 32837 Michael P. Hatley, WSBA No. 57500 9 James G. Diehl, WSBA No. 54914

10 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, Washington 98101-3143 11 Telephone (206) 467-1816 rsulkin@mcnaul.com 12 meaton@mcnaul.com mhatley@mcnaul.com 13 jdiehl@mcnaul.com

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs AAA Max 1 Limited, AAA Max 2 Limited, AAA Max 3 Limited, AAA Max 4 15 Limited, AAA B787 2 Limited and AAA B787 3 Limited 16 PERKINS COIE LLP 17 By: s/ Michael Paisner 18 (via email authorization) Michael Paisner, WSBA No. 48822 19 Mica D. Klein, WSBA No. 46596

20 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, Washington 98101-3804 21 Telephone (206) 359-8000 mpaisner@perkinscoie.com 22 micaklein@perkinscoie.com

23 Attorneys for Defendant The Boeing Company

STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 1 ORDER

2 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 The Court finds that good cause exists to allow Plaintiffs to file a second amended

4 complaint to strike Plaintiff AAA B787 3 Limited as a party in the case and withdraw its

5 Claims II and IV relating to the 787 Dreamliner (MSN 63321). Plaintiffs shall file the

6 second amended complaint in final format on the docket within five (5) days.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 DATED this 29th day of December, 2025.

10 A

12 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13

STIPULATED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND