Richard-Bey, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Darryl Clark, Jr. v. Adan et al
Filing
114
ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 1/23/2017: Defendants' motions to dismiss 73 84 are granted. Plaintiffs' claims against Ahmed Abdulle and Great Dane Trailers, Inc., are dismissed with prejudice. [For further detail see attached order.] Notices mailed. (psm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ROSEZENA RICHARD-BEY, individually
and as special administrator of the
estate of DARRYL CLARK, JR., deceased,
et al.,
No. 15 CV 742
Plaintiffs,
Judge Manish S. Shah
v.
IDRISS CABDINAASIR ADAN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants’ motions to dismiss [73] [84] are granted. Plaintiffs’ claims against
Ahmed Abdulle and Great Dane Trailers, Inc., are dismissed with prejudice.
STATEMENT
On October 5, 2014, Darryl Clark and Lamont Taylor were in a car that
crashed into a truck trailer with an underride guard, and both men died. Defendant
Great Dane Trailers manufactured the trailer and its underride guard, and
defendant Ahmed Abdulle owned it. After the collision, and after plaintiffs requested
the preservation of evidence related to the crash, the trailer and the underride guard
were destroyed. In a fifth amended complaint, filed on October 10, 2016, plaintiffs
brought—among other claims—spoliation (negligence) claims against Abdulle and
strict liability (defective and dangerous product) claims against Great Dane Trailers.
Both defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Illinois tort law governs here, and Illinois recognizes no duty on
manufacturers to design a trailer that is safe for other vehicles to collide into. Mieher
v. Brown, 54 Ill.2d 539, 545 (1973); Beattie v. Lindelof, 262 Ill. App. 3d 372, 380 (1st
Dist. 1994); Rennert v. Great Dane Ltd. P’ship, 543 F.3d 914, 916–917 (7th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiffs acknowledge that the law is against them, but argue that the Illinois
Supreme Court might change its view, particularly in light of proposed regulations
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that might require safer
rear-impact guards. The Mieher-Beattie line of cases is well-established, and faced
with a similar argument about regulatory changes that post-dated Mieher-Beattie,
the court of appeals declined to anticipate any change in Illinois law. Rennert, 543
F.3d at 918. These are authoritative (and persuasive) decisions, and as a result, I
conclude that Great Dane Trailers was under no duty to design or manufacture an
underride guard that was safe for Clark and Taylor to collide into. Plaintiffs fail to
state a tort claim against Great Dane Trailers.
In addition, plaintiffs’ claims against Great Dane Trailers were filed more
than two years after the crash, and are untimely. Plaintiffs argue that the amended
complaint relates back to the original complaint, but no trailer manufacturer was
ever named or given notice of this lawsuit until October 10, 2016. A claim against a
new party does not relate back if the party brought in by the amendment did not
receive notice of the action and did not know that the action would have been brought
against it, but for a mistake concerning the party’s identity. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(c)(1)(C). Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 15(c)(1)(C).
Abdulle’s complicity in the destruction of the trailer is the basis for the
spoliation claims against him. These claims require plaintiffs to allege that the
destruction of evidence was the proximate cause of their inability to prove an
underlying lawsuit. If there is no viable underlying lawsuit, there is no spoliation
claim. Hartmann Realtors v. Biffar, 2014 IL App (5th) 130543, ¶ 18, 13 N.E.3d 350,
357 (5th Dist. 2014). Plaintiffs concede—by offering no spoliation-specific argument
in response to Abdulle’s motion—that if the trailer and rear guard were not the
source of any tort duties, then their destruction did not cause the inability to prove a
lawsuit. As just discussed, there is no viable, alleged lawsuit based on the trailer and
guard, and so the spoliation claims against Abdulle are dismissed.
Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint is denied. Plaintiffs have
amended the complaint many times, fact discovery should be nearly completed, and
plaintiffs do not suggest any amendment that would cure the defect in their theory
concerning the underride guard. The proposal to amend to add a party that would
destroy diversity jurisdiction would only complicate and delay resolution of the case.
The request for certification of a question to the Illinois Supreme Court is denied,
because Illinois Supreme Court Rule 20 does not authorize federal district courts to
certify questions to the Illinois Supreme Court and Mieher provides controlling
precedent on the question.
ENTER:
Date: 1/23/2017
Manish S. Shah
U.S. District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?