Baek et al. v. ARC International North America Holdings Inc. et al.

Filing 49

ORDER granting 41 Arc's Motion for Summary Judgment. Arc's Motion forHearing, Doc. 48, is DENIED as MOOT by Judge John L. Kane on 08/04/14.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01247-JLK
MI KYONG BAEK and FRED MIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARC INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and
MODNY, INC., a corporation of the Republic of Korea,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING ARC INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Doc. 41, and DENYING MOTION FOR
HEARING, Doc. 48.
Kane, J.
Defendant Arc International North America Holdings, Inc. (“Arc”) moves for summary
judgment per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Doc. 41. For the reasons that follow, I GRANT
the motion.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs suffered injuries when a Luminarc brand glass cooking pot (“the Pot”) broke
while boiling water and scalded Plaintiff Mi Kyong Baek. For purposes of the present Motion,
Plaintiffs’ injuries are not at issue. The only relevant matter is whether Arc is somehow
connected to the Pot (e.g., whether Arc designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, or otherwise
had effect either upon the Pot coming into existence or into Plaintiffs’ possession). Because no
evidence suggests that Arc had any involvement with the Pot, it cannot be liable under any of
Plaintiffs’ legal theories.

1

II.

FACTS

On or about January 18, 2009, Plaintiffs purchased a large Luminarc glass pot from
H-Mart in Aurora, Colorado. Defendant Modny, Inc. (“Modny”) distributed the Pot to the
United States. Default was entered against Modny on March 19, 2013 and judgment against the
same entered on January 24, 2014. Defendant Arc International Holdings, Inc. was dismissed
from this lawsuit on February 13, 2013. Defendant Arc International Holdings, Inc. and the
instant Defendant Arc International North America Holdings, Inc. are two separate and distinct
entities. Affidavit of Fred Dohn, Chief Executive Officer for Arc International North America
Holdings, Inc., at ¶ 3 (emphasis added) Arc does not manufacture, sell, or distribute any
cookware. Id. at ¶ 4. Arc did not design, manufacture, sell, or distribute the Pot. Id. at ¶4-8.
III.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Adamson v.
Multi Community Diversified Servs., Inc., 514 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir. 2008). A disputed fact
is material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Adamson, 514 F.3d
at 1145. A factual dispute is genuine if a rational jury could find for the nonmoving party on the
evidence presented. Id. The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of
material fact exists. Adamson, 514 F.3d at 1145. Where, as here, the moving party does not bear
the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, it may satisfy its burden by showing a lack of evidence
for an essential element of the nonmovant's claim. Id. In deciding whether the moving party has
carried its burden, I may not weigh the evidence and must view the evidence and draw all
reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Adamson, 514 F.3d at 1145. Neither

2

unsupported conclusory allegations nor a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the
nonmovant's position are sufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact. See Mackenzie v. City
and County of Denver, 414 F.3d 1266, 1273 (10th Cir. 2005); Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d
1341, 1347 (10th Cir. 1997).
IV.

DISCUSSION

In this product liability lawsuit, each of Plaintiffs’ claims share the threshold requirement,
whether explicitly required by applicable statute or by logic, that Arc either designed,
manufactured, distributed, sold, or was otherwise involved with the Pot. As stated above, Arc
presented affidavit evidence that it did not have any involvement with the Pot. Plaintiffs do not
question the authenticity or veracity of the affidavit and, indeed, ignore its existence entirely in
their Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Instead, offering no evidence to contradict
Mr. Dohn’s testimony, they baldly state without justification that they need discovery to explore
the question of Arc’s involvement with the Pot. Plaintiffs had over four months from the time
that initial disclosures were exchanged to serve discovery to learn more about Arc, but did not
deign to do so.
“[W]here the moving party presents affidavits, or depositions, or both, which taken alone
would entitle him to a directed verdict, if believed, and which the opposite party does not
discredit as dishonest, it rests upon that party at least to specify some opposing evidence that he
can adduce which may reasonably change the result.” Zampos v. United States Smelting,
Refining & Mining Co., 206 F.2d 171, 174 (10th Cir. 1953). If there is no such opposing
evidence, then the moving party is entitled to a directed verdict or summary judgment. Id. at 17476. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence suggesting that Mr. Dohn’s affidavit is
dishonest or inaccurate. Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence opposing Mr. Dohn’s

3

affidavit testimony that Arc had no involvement with the Pot. Therefore, through the
unchallenged affidavit of Mr. Dohn, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Arc did not
design, manufacture, distribute, or sell the Pot. Accordingly, it is proper to grant summary
judgment in favor of Arc with respect to each of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Insofar as Plaintiffs imply that they should be able to conduct discovery to learn if there
is another company affiliated with Arc that might be liable regardless of Arc’s involvement (or
lack thereof), the argument is rejected. First, Plaintiffs have had ample time, including that
elapsed before filing their Complaint up to now, to determine the proper parties. Second,
Plaintiffs have presented no evidence suggesting they have not already named the correct
defendants. Plaintiffs named Arc International, Modny, and Arc. Arc had no involvement with
the Pot; Arc International was the manufacturer, which was dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction; and Modny was the distributor, which has a default judgment against it. Curiously,
Plaintiffs knew about, but did not name the retailer, H-Mart.

V.

CONCLUSION

Because Arc had no involvement with the Pot, it is entitled to summary judgment. I
GRANT Arc’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 41. Accordingly, Arc’s Motion for
Hearing, Doc. 48, is DENIED as MOOT.

DATED:

August 4, 2014

BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane
John L. Kane, U.S. Senior District Judge

4