Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is fighting back against accusations that it’s trying to delay justice or engage in forum-shopping in the case of the 2020 helicopter crash that killed six Canadian Air Force members. The company, which is based in Connecticut, insists that its motion to move the suit from Pennsylvania to a federal court in Connecticut is not just a tactic to sidestep the case but a necessary step to ensure a fair trial.

The Crash That Shook Families and Nations

The tragic incident took place off the coast of Greece in April 2020, when a Sikorsky-made CH-148 helicopter malfunctioned during a low-altitude exercise. The families of the deceased airmen filed their lawsuit in 2023, accusing Sikorsky of making a flawed aircraft that overrode the pilots' commands, sending the helicopter hurtling into the sea.

Sikorsky’s response, filed Tuesday with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is a forceful defense against the claims that its motion to transfer the case to Connecticut is merely a strategic maneuver. The company’s legal team argues that such a move is not only legitimate but also far more practical given the circumstances. They assert that no one involved has any substantial ties to Pennsylvania, making Connecticut a more reasonable venue.

Claims of Forum-Shopping Rejected

Sikorsky rejects the argument that the company is "forum-shopping" by attempting to shift the case to a state more favorable to its defense. The families had initially filed the lawsuit in Pennsylvania, presumably in the hopes of achieving a better financial recovery. However, Sikorsky argues that their decision to file in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was not based on jurisdictional convenience but rather their perceived advantage in that district.

"The plaintiffs have acknowledged their choice to file in Pennsylvania was to secure a better recovery than they might have in their home forum," Sikorsky’s legal team stated. They also emphasize that the crash involved Canadian Air Force members and took place in Greece, so there’s little connection to the state of Pennsylvania. The company maintains that the legal case should rightfully be heard in Connecticut, where Sikorsky’s operations are based.

A Delay or a Necessary Legal Move?

Critics of Sikorsky’s actions claim the move to transfer the case is simply a stalling tactic, aimed at delaying the legal proceedings. Sikorsky counters that filing the motion to transfer after a prior motion to dismiss was denied was entirely appropriate. They argue that it would have been illogical to submit both motions at the same time.

Moreover, Sikorsky points out that the prior motion, which sought to dismiss the case on grounds of improper forum, was based on the assertion that the case should have been heard in Canada. Since the court denied that motion, Sikorsky argues that moving the venue to Connecticut is the next logical step.

Motion for Reconsideration on Discovery Ruling

The company’s legal team did not stop there. On the same day, Sikorsky filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order compelling the company to respond to certain discovery requests before the deadline. Sikorsky claims that the families did not meet in good faith to resolve their discovery disputes and is asking the court to stay all discovery issues until the motion to transfer is settled.

What’s Next in the Sikorsky Lawsuit?

As the case continues to unfold, both sides are gearing up for a lengthy legal battle. Sikorsky’s motion to transfer the case to Connecticut is just one chapter in a complex and emotionally charged dispute. With lives lost and high stakes on both sides, the outcome remains uncertain.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sikorsky Aircraft is represented by Ralph V. Pagano of Fitzpatrick Hunt & Pagano LLP and John C. McMeekin II of Rawle & Henderson LLP. The families are represented by Stephen E. Raynes, Martin K. Brigham, and Daniel Bencivenga of Raynes & Lawn.