Carmen v. Breville Group Limited et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on June 20, 2018 (Dkt. 83 ) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 64 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims made against Defendants Breville USA, Inc. and Breville Holdings, USA, Inc. are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DEAN A. CARMEN,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00117-EJL-CWD

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
BREVILLE USA, INC., f/k/a
METRO/THEBE, INC. (d/b/a/HWI
USA) a California corporation,
BREVILLE HOLDINGS USA, INC., a
California corporation, BREVILLE
GROUP LIMITED a foreign business
entity, BREVILLE PTY LIMITED, a
foreign business entity, BREVILLE
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a foreign
business entity, and BED BATH &
BEYOND, INC., a New York
corporation,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On June 20, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted. (Dkt. 83.) Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s
proposed recommendation by filing written objections to the Report within fourteen days
after being served with a copy of the same. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule
72.1(b). The district court must then “make a de novo determination of those portions of

the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No
objections have been filed and the matter is ripe for the Court’s consideration. See Local
Civ. R. 72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Where
the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a de novo review. The
Ninth Circuit has interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) stating:
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise….“to the extent de novo review is
required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless
requested by the parties.” Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see
also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). To the extent that no
objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within fourteen days of
service of the Report and Recommendation). “When no timely objection is filed, the Court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept

the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell
v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
DISCUSSION
The complete procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in
the Report and the Court incorporates the same in this Order. Briefly, Plaintiff Dean
Carmen initiated this action by filing his Complaint against the Defendants Breville USA,
Inc. and Breville Holdings, USA, Inc. (collectively “Breville”) alleging seven products
liability based claims seeking damages for injuries he claims to have suffered when he used
a Breville expresso maker in April of 2013. Breville filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment on all claims arguing Mr. Carmen has failed to identify any defect or point to
any evidence supporting a finding of any defect with the expresso maker nor has he shown
that any defect caused his injuries. (Dkt. 64.) Mr. Carmen filed a response to the Motion.
(Dkt. 80.)1 The Report recommends granting Breville’s Motion for Summary Judgment
concluding that Mr. Carmen has failed to point to any evidence giving rise to a genuine
issue of material fact that the expresso maker in question was defective and/or that such
defect caused his injuries. (Dkt. 83.) The Report further concludes that Mr. Carmen has not
provided any evidence that Breville knew or had reason to know the expresso maker was

1

Mr. Carmen requested an extension of time in which to file a more complete response to the
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 79.) Judge Dale denied the request. (Dkt. 83.) This Court
agrees with Judge Dale’s Order denying Mr. Carmen’s request for a further extension of time to
file a response. (Dkt. 83.) Mr. Carmen was given ample notice and time in which to file a response.
A further extension of time in this case would be unduly prejudicial to Breville.

likely to be unsafe when used for its intended purpose such that it had a duty to warn. (Dkt.
83.)
This Court has reviewed the original briefing of the parties, the Report, and the
entire record herein. In doing so, the Court is mindful that the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant
and, as such, the filings and motions are construed liberally. See Thomas v. Ponder, 611
F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). That being said, while pro se litigants are held to less
stringent standards, a litigant's pro se status does not excuse him or her from complying
with the procedural or substantive rules of the court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth
Circuit has held “an ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants, must comply strictly with
the summary judgment rules.” Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150 (citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508
F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Applying these principles here, this Court finds no clear error in the Report.
Moreover, this Court agrees with the Report’s recitation of the facts, discussion of the
applicable law, analysis, reasoning, and conclusion finding that Mr. Carmen has failed to
point to evidence giving rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to the material elements
of his claims. This Court adopts and incorporates the findings and conclusions of the
Report. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Court finds Mr. Carmen has failed to
identify any defect in the expresso maker, point to evidence that such a defect existed in
the expresso maker in question, or show that Breville had a duty to warn consumers. The
Court also finds there is no evidence that any defect caused Mr. Carmen’s injuries. For

these reasons, the Court grants the Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses the claims
brought against the Breville Defendants.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on June 20, 2018 (Dkt. 83) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
and the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 64) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims made against Defendants Breville
USA, Inc. and Breville Holdings, USA, Inc. are DISMISSED.

DATED: August 7, 2018
_________________________
Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U.S. District Judge