Robinson v. Mine Safety Appliances Company et al

Filing 169

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 153 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Status conference will be held in Little Rock on July 16, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in Room B155 of the Richard Sheppard Arnold U.S. Courthouse. Counsel for all partie s must attend. Robinson's response to Clark's Sand's statement of undisputed material facts is stricken for noncompliance with the Court's Scheduling Order. The Amended Complaint is due by August 15, 2013. Robinson should wait until after the status conference before amending. Robinson's conforming statement is due by June 14th. clark Sand's reply is due by June 21st. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/6/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
PLAINTIFF

HERSHEL LEE ROBINSON
No. 5:12-cv-383-DPM

v.

MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES
COMPANY, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

1. Robinson says that Empire Abrasive Equipment Company L.P. is
liable as successor-in-interest to Empire Abrasive Equipment Corporation. NQ

1 at 8-9. Empire L.P. moves for judgment on the pleadings, NQ 153, saying that
Robinson has not alleged enough facts to support his claim. Alternatively,
Empire L.P. asks the Court to order Robinson to amend his complaint and
provide specific facts tying the companies together. Ibid. Robinson has not
responded.
The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The successor-liability
claim, though thin, is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
similarity in the two companies' names, their Pennsylvania locations, and
their alleged participation in the personal-respiratory-equipment business
push the claim beyond mere speculation. Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). But to survive against the Empire entities, the complaint

needs to be amended to provide more specifics about them and the claims
against them.
2. The complaint also needs more particulars and specificity across the
board. The defendants vary in how they allegedly harmed Robinson- some
designed and sold supposedly defective products, some supposedly exposed
Robinson to silica sand they produced, others purportedly conspired or acted
in concert against him. But Robinson 1umps them all together under the label
"defendants" in all claims. And the facts alleged against each defendant are
threadbare. The parties and the Court need to know exactly who allegedly
did exactly what.
To get the case on track, the Court will hold a status conference in Little
Rock on 16 July 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in Room B155 of the Richard Sheppard
Arnold Courthouse. Counsel for all parties must attend. We'll discuss the
particulars of amending Robinson's complaint and hear argument on Clark
Sand's pending motion for summary judgment.
3.

Robinson's response to Clark Sand's statement of undisputed

material facts, NQ 167, is stricken for noncompliance with the Court's

-2-

scheduling Order, NQ 155. Robinson must file a conforming statement. Clark
Sand also needs to reply.

* * *
Motion, NQ 153, denied as to judgment, granted as to the needed
amendment. Amended complaint due by 15 August 2013. Robinson should
wait until after the status conference before amending.

Robinson's

conforming statement is due by June 14th. Clark Sand's reply is due by June
21st.
So Ordered.
(/

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-