On July 15, 2009, plaintiffs’ decedents Mustapha Sesay, 38, Rajesh Vashdev, 39, and Jorge Quinones, 45, were occupants of a private aviation Beechcraft airplane that crashed shortly after attempting a takeoff from the Hawthorne Municipal Airport. The pilot, Vashdev, was seated in the front left seat and being checked out in the aircraft by a flight instructor, Sesay, the Pilot-In-Command. Quinones, who also had a pilot license, was friends with the other two pilots and was a rear-seat passenger along for the ride. The checkout included a series of several touch-and-go landings. After completing several successfully, the plane took off again with the declared intention of doing another go-around. However, as the plane began to climb, witnesses saw a puff of smoke emit from the engine compartment of the single-propeller aircraft. The plane apparently lost power and crashed into a parking lot adjacent to the airport. All three men died from the crash. Vashdev’s wife, Bhavna Rohera (acting individually, as administrator of her husband’s estate, and on behalf of her two minor children, Akash Rohera and Risha Rohera) sued Raytheon Aircraft Co., Teledyne Continental Motors Inc., Tornado Alley Turbo Inc., General Aviation Modifications Inc., and Kelly Aerospace Inc. Carmen Quinones (acting individually and as administrator of Jorge Quinones’ estate), Melissa Sesay (acting individually, as administrator of Mustapha Sesay’s estate, and on behalf of her three minor children, Aminah Sesay, Halimah Sesay, and Zakiah Sesay), and Amid Sesay (Mustapha Sesay’s father) brought separate actions against Raytheon Aircraft Co., Teledyne Continental Motors Inc., Tornado Alley Turbo Inc., General Aviation Modifications Inc., and Kelly Aerospace Inc. All four lawsuits, which were filed within days of each other and brought by separate legal counsel, were filed in the Superior Court of California. The widow of each decedent, acting individually and on behalf of the respective decedents’ estates and beneficiaries, all asserted causes of action for negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, strict products liability, and failure to warn. One of the defendants, Teledyne Continental Motors, removed the first two filed cases to federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction, but they were both ultimately remanded to state court, where General Aviation Co. and Cruisair Aviation Inc. were added as additional defendants to all four of the pending cases. The four cases, which were consolidated on April 4, 2012, and a host of additional defendants were added by way of amended complaints, uniform to all four proceedings. Plaintiff Amid Sesay was ultimately dismissed by the court based on a finding that the father lacked standing. Thus, the three viable and consolidated lawsuits proceeded with a united front that faulted the various defendants for the airplane crash on various theories of product liability. (There were no cross-claims by or between the plaintiffs alleging pilot error, as found by federal investigators.) However, all but three of the defendants were let out of the case either by voluntary dismissals or stipulations of dismissal based on confidential settlements with all plaintiffs. Thus, the matter continued with claims made on behalf of the estate of Vashdev against Tornado Alley Turbo Inc., General Aviation Modifications Inc., and Kelly Aerospace Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the cause of the crash was a sudden loss of power due to either a failure of the aircraft’s turbocharger or a malfunction in its fuel injection system. Counsel contended that Kelly Aerospace defectively manufactured the turbocharging system and Tornado Alley Turbo defectively installed the system. Counsel also contended that General Aviation Modifications was responsible for the manufacture and installation of the plane’s allegedly defective fuel injection system. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the turbo wheel was not rotating freely just prior to the crash because of accumulation of carbon debris (“coking-up”) resulting from defects in the design and materials of the turbocharging system. Counsel also contended that a database was discovered that listed thousands of warranty claims against the turbocharging system manufactured by Kelly Aerospace and installed by Tornado Alley Turbo. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that these warranty claims were indicative of a problem. (The court allowed one such claim into evidence.) The plaintiffs’ expert metallurgist opined that piston rings in the engine “coked-up” with carbon debris, which caused an unexpected reduction in engine shaft rpms, resulting in a loss of power. The expert also opined that the loss of power caused sluggishness in the spooling turbo wheel and a loss of horsepower at a time when the plane required spooling-up (increased horsepower) to support its climbing-out maneuver as part of the take-off segment of the flight. Thus, the expert testified that, based on his post-crash inspections and testing, the aircraft’s turbocharger was defective. Plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that if the turbocharging system did not cause the loss of power, it must have been the fuel injectors manufactured and installed by General Aviation Modifications. In addition, counsel contended that because there was so much that could go wrong with the complex aircraft, the warnings about what could go wrong were inadequate. The court ultimately dismissed the case against Kelly Aerospace at the end of the plaintiffs’ proofs. Defense counsel argued that the cause of the crash was pilot error. Counsel contended that the pilot (presumably Vashdev, but under the supervision of Mustapha Sesay) either intentionally or inadvertently activated the fuel boost pump switch, which in flight would cause the engine to flood and likely stall. There were warnings in the cockpit and in the plane’s operating manual not to activate the fuel boost pump while in flight, as it was intended for use only on the ground (in this model aircraft). Counsel noted that the most recent “complex plane” that Vashdev had flown as a pilot had a fuel pump system that could be engaged during flight and used for a rapid increase in power, but that it was located opposite from where it was in the subject plane. Defense counsel noted that the plane that crashed did not have a downloadable GPS system that would facilitate recreating its flight path with meticulous detail and that the radar recording at and about the Hawthorne Municipal Airport was inadequate for a detailed recreation. However, counsel called a flight instructor pilot who was watching the plane do its go-rounds. The instructor was able to provide sufficient information so as to plot the plane’s course and elevations in the takeoff and landing pattern with a great deal of accuracy. As a result, defense counsel disputed the plaintiffs’ claim that a malfunction of the turbocharging system was the cause of the crash. Instead, defense counsel argued that the only diminishment in the turbo wheels rotation, as noted following the accident, was due to the damage caused by the impact and not due to a mechanical failure brought on by any type of buildup of carbon debris on the rotating part in question. One of the defense’s expert aviation engineers, who both worked for and was a principal at General Aviation Modifications and Tornado Ally Turbo, testified to performing simulated takeoffs and landings at altitude with a similar aircraft in which he intentionally disabled the spinning of the turbo wheel by inserting brass shims into it to cause it to malfunction. He testified that the findings of the uneventful simulations disproved the plaintiffs’ contention that the diminishment of the turbo wheel’s function caused the plane to lose power and crash. Thus, the expert testified that this intentionally created “worst case” scenario did not cause the plane to lose power in the manner alleged by the plaintiffs. Defense counsel noted that there were seven inspections of the aircraft during the pendency of the litigation for discovery purposes and to accommodate experts. The plaintiffs wanted their metallurgist to perform a sectioning of the rotating shaft under scrutiny, but while a motion for a protective order was pending, the plaintiffs’ metallurgist went ahead and performed this metallurgic surgery for testing purposes. As a result, defense counsel was denied the opportunity to present the subject part to the jury in an unaltered condition so that they could argue that there was nothing wrong with its rotation capacity. Thus, defense counsel alleged spoliation, and the court granted an in limine motion barring plaintiffs’ counsel from commenting on, or drawing conclusions from, the post-crash condition of the turbo wheel in support of the plaintiffs’ product liability theory., Rajesh Vashdev, Mustapha Sesay, and Jorge Quinones all died instantly as a result of the crash. There was no evidence of any conscious pain and suffering other than their awareness of the imminent crash.