ASTRIUM S.A.S. V TRW, INC., No. 03-55499 (9th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASTRIUM S.A.S.; ASTRIUM, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRW, INC.; PILKINGTON OPTRONICS, INC.; CORNING NETOPTIX; OFC CORPORATION; OPTICAL FILTER CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.   No. 03-55499 D.C. No. CV-00-01169-DOC   ASTRIUM S.A.S., Plaintiff, v. TRW, INC., Defendant, v. PILKINGTON OPTRONICS, INC., Third-party-plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOKKER SPACE B.V.; DUTCH SPACE HOLDING B.V.; FOKKER SPACE & SYSTEMS B.V., Third-party-defendants-Appellees. 9125   No. 03-56213 D.C. No. CV-00-01169-DOC 9126 ASTRIUM S.A.S. v. TRW, INC.  ASTRIUM S.A.S., Plaintiff, v. TRW, INC., Defendant, v. CORNING NETOPTIX; OPTICAL FILTER CORPORATION, Third-party-plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FOKKER SPACE B.V.; DUTCH SPACE HOLDING B.V.; FOKKER SPACE & SYSTEMS B.V., Third-party-defendants-Appellees.  No. 03-56214 D.C. No. CV-00-01169-DOC   ASTRIUM S.A.S., Plaintiff, v. TRW, INC., Defendant, v. CORNING NETOPTIX; OPTICAL FILTER CORPORATION; PILKINGTON OPTRONICS, INC., Third-party-plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FOKKER SPACE B.V.; DUTCH SPACE HOLDING B.V., Third-party-defendants-Appellants.   No. 03-56378 D.C. No. CV-00-01169-DOC ORDER ASTRIUM S.A.S. v. TRW, INC. 9127 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 24, 2006 Pasadena, California Filed August 9, 2006 Before: Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Pamela Ann Rymer and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges. COUNSEL Julian Brew, Kaye Scholer, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Steven S. Rosenthal (argued), Kay Scholer, LLP, Washington, DC, for Astrium, S.A.S. and Astrium, Ltd., appellants. Robert J. Becher and Fred G. Bennett (argued), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corp. (formerly known as TRW INC.); Mark R. Irvine and James W. Hunt (argued), Mendes & Mount, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Pilkington Optronics, Inc.; Ronald A. McIntire and Chung H. Han, Perkins Coie, LLP, Santa Monica, California, for Corning Netoptix, Inc., OFC Corporation, and Optical Filter Corporation, appellees. Diane W. Wilson, Condon & Forsyth, LLP, New York, New York, for Fokker Space B.V. and Dutch Space Holding B.V., third-party-defendants-appellees. ORDER Astrium, S.A.S. and Astrium, Ltd. (collectively Astrium) 9128 ASTRIUM S.A.S. v. TRW, INC. appeal the district court s grant of summary judgment on Astrium s tort claims against a number of subcontractors1 after the alleged failure of solar arrays used to power telecommunications satellites.2 We dispose of the issues raised therein in a memorandum disposition in which we affirm the district court s ultimate decision in Astrium I. However, we note that the discussion of the merits in the district court s published order was based upon a decision of the California Court of Appeal as set forth in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 682, 684, 697-99 (Ct. App. 2003). That decision was vacated by the California Supreme Court when it granted review. In fact, the decision of the California Supreme Court reached a conclusion opposite to that of the California Court of Appeal. See Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979, 993-94, 102 P.3d 268, 276, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352, 362 (2004). Therefore, to avoid confusion, we vacate the portion of the district court s order which set forth the reasons for the district court s decision. That portion appears in part III of Astrium I, 254 F. Supp. 2d at 1134-40. District court order VACATED in part. 1 Those are TRW, Inc.; and Corning Netoptix, Inc., Optical Filter Corporation, and OFC Corp. (collectively OFC). 2 See Astrium, S.A.S. v. TRW, Inc., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (Astrium I). PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
