Olympic Air, Inc. v. Helicopter Technology Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 18, 2022
• Docket: 2:17-cv-01257
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 OLYMPIC AIR, INC.; CATLIN Case No. C17-1257-RSL 9 INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR A FINDING OF 11 v. CONTEMPT 12 HELICOPTER TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, 13 et al., 14 Defendants. 15 WILLIAM G. REED and MARY E. REED, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 HELICOPTER TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, 19 et al., 20 Defendants. 21

22 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs William G. Reed and Mary E. Reed’s 23 “Cross Motion for a Finding of Contempt Re This Court’s Order Compelling Discovery.” (Dkt. 24 # 130). Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the remainder of the record, the 25 Court finds as follows: 26 On September 27, 2021, the Court granted the Reeds’ motion to dismiss their claims with 27 prejudice and entered judgment dismissing their claims because they had settled their claims 28 against their only remaining defendant, Helicopter Technology Company. See Dkts. # 157 1 (Order), # 158 (Judgment). The Reeds were consequently terminated as parties to the case as of 2 the same date. 3 The Reeds brought the instant motion. See Dkt. # 130 at 2. The remaining plaintiffs, 4 Olympic Air, Inc. and Catlin Insurance Company, Inc. did not join this motion. Because the 5 moving parties have settled, the Court concludes that the motion is moot. See Riverhead Sav. 6 Bank v. Nat'l Mortg. Equity Corp., 893 F.2d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 1990). 7 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Reeds’ Cross 8 Motion for a Finding of Contempt Re This Court’s Order Compelling Discovery (Dkt. # 130) is 9 DENIED as moot, without prejudice to the remaining plaintiffs’ ability to raise the issue in their 10 own motions. 11 DATED this 18th day of March, 2022. 12 A

13 Robert S. Lasnik 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28