AAA Max 1 Limited v. The Boeing Company

Opinion

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

9 AAA MAX 1 LIMITED, AAA MAX 2 Case No. C23-1356RSM 10 LIMITED, AAA MAX 3 LIMITED, AAA MAX 4 LIMITED, AAA B787 2 ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 11 LIMITED and AAA B787 3 LIMITED, SEVER

12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 THE BOEING COMPANY, 15

16 Defendant.

17 This matter arises out of Boeing’s sale of 737 MAX and 787 Dreamliner aircraft to 18 19 Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, which were then ultimately assigned to and purchased by the 20 AAA Entities in the caption above. The AAA Entities are “special purpose vehicles that have 21 been involved in purchasing, leasing, reselling and/or re-leasing the aircraft at issue in this 22 case.” Dkt. #67 at 1. Boeing removed this case to federal court in 2023, with related litigation 23 going all the way back to 2020. See Dkt. #1; Dkt. #79-1. 24 25 This matter now comes before the Court on Defendant Boeing’s Motion to Sever, Dkt. 26 #122. Boeing moves to sever Plaintiffs under Rule 20, arguing that the AAA “MAX” Plaintiffs 27 are bringing claims related to issues with the 737 MAX and that the AAA 787 Plaintiffs are, 28 obviously, bringing claims related to issues with the 787 Dreamliner. These are different 1 2 planes with different claims about why Boeing breached contracts. See Dkt. #105. Plaintiffs 3 also bring fraud claims, but only as to the 737 MAX and not the 787. See Dkt. #67. Plaintiffs, 4 all represented by the same counsel, have filed an opposition. Dkt. #127. The Court has 5 determined that it can rule on this Motion without the need of oral argument. 6 The parties agree that Rule 20, Permissive Joinder of Parties, applies. Permissive 7 8 joinder is appropriate only when multiple plaintiffs each assert a right to relief “arising out of 9 the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of 10 law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1). But even 11 when Rule 20(a)(1)’s threshold requirements are met, a district court must also “examine 12 13 whether permissive joinder would ‘comport with the principles of fundamental fairness’ or 14 would result in prejudice to either side.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 15 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Desert Empire Bank, 623 F.2d at 1375). Rule 20 is “construed 16 liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to expedite the final determination of 17 disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.” League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l 18 19 Plan. Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 20 U.S. 715, 724, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966) (“Under the Rules, the impulse is 21 toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; 22 joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.”). The same-transaction and 23 common-question requirements are “not rigid tests, but rather are flexible concepts used by the 24 25 courts to implement the purpose of Rule 20 and therefore are to be read as broadly as possible 26 whenever doing so is likely to promote judicial economy.” Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., 27 LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1187-88 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (cleaned up). 28 Bifurcation is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) and allows the 1 2 parties and the Court to proceed in two separate trials. Bifurcation requires courts to consider 3 similar factors as above, namely “convenience, prejudice, judicial economy, risk of confusion, 4 and whether the issues are clearly separable.” Collins v. Milliman, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-0061- 5 RAJ, 2023 WL 3891749, at *5 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2023). Bifurcation to avoid prejudice or to 6 expedite and economize are “independent reasons, any one of which is enough to order 7 8 bifurcation.” Larsen v. PTT, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC, 2024 WL 5088342, at *7 (W.D. 9 Wash. Dec. 12, 2024). 10 The Court has reviewed the briefing of the parties and is convinced that severing the 11 737 MAX claims from the 787 Dreamliner claims would result in delay, duplication of 12 13 discovery efforts, and repetition of dispositive motion briefing; it may also over-complicate 14 pretrial evidentiary issues. The Court questions why Boeing would move for severance now, 15 after years of litigation and several logical opportunities to do so, such as when Boeing filed a 16 motion to dismiss. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this Motion is almost certainly a delay 17 tactic that would prejudice Plaintiffs and result in almost no convenience benefit. Construing 18 19 Rule 20 liberally, Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that their claims arise out of a series 20 of transactions with common questions of law or fact. Accordingly, severance is not warranted. 21 On the other hand, Boeing has made a credible argument for bifurcation. Although 22 Plaintiffs are talking about the same kind of contracts in both cases, and there may be an 23 overlap of witnesses, the allegations against Boeing for each plane are sufficiently distinct as to 24 25 lead to a high likelihood of juror confusion or even prejudice. For example, facts concerning 26 fraud for the 737 MAX could improperly influence the jury when deciding questions about 27 28 breach of contract for the 787 Dreamliner. Accordingly, the Court will deny Boeing’s request 1 2 to sever but grant its request for trial bifurcation. 3 Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the record, the Court 4 hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant Boeing’s Motion, Dkt. #122, is GRANTED IN 5 PART. Trial is this matter will be bifurcated, with the jury reaching a verdict on one matter 6 before turning to the second. Given the relative risk of prejudice from one claim to the other, 7 8 and the fraud claim only existing for the 737 MAX planes, it makes sense to the Court for the 9 jury to hear the 787 Dreamliner claims first. The parties are to submit a joint proposed plan for 10 a bifurcated trial with their proposed pretrial order, currently due May 27, 2026. 11 DATED this 13th day of August, 2025. 12 A 13 14 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28