Baldwin et al v. Cattron Group International Inc et al
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER: Court DENIES 10 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 8/5/2011. (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
Michael G. Baldwin and
Jonie L. Baldwin,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Cattron Group International, Inc. and,
Cattron-Theimeg International, Ltd.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:11-CV-162 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
In this diversity lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that a defective remote control device made by
Defendants caused substantial injury to Mr. Baldwin and loss of consortium to Mrs. Baldwin.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knowingly designed and manufactured a defective remote
control device, and failed to warn of a potential malfunction. They claim that Defendants failed
to maintain the remote control unit and were negligent. Plaintiffs seek damages for pain and
suffering, medical expenses, and loss of consortium.
Defendants moved to dismiss the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim. They maintain that Plaintiffs did not plead specific facts needed to
state a claim. They highlight the Complaint did not identify the unit at issue, or allege a specific
mechanical or electrical failure. They also maintain Plaintiff’s complaint lacks specific
allegations of improper workmanship, defective materials, or deviations during manufacturing.
Defendants claim this lack of information renders Plaintiff’s complaint inadequate under the
pleading standards mandated in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
In response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
with greater specificity. Defendants filed a supplemental brief to their motion to dismiss, arguing
that the Amended Complaint continued to lack the factual detail required by Twombly, and they
ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.
In the Amended Complaint, Mr. Baldwin states he used the remote to move a crane
during his employment at a steel plant. Mr. Baldwin alleges that he released the unit’s controls to
stop the crane, but the crane did not stop moving. Mr. Baldwin states that releasing the controls
should have stopped the crane, and cites his experience and training with the remote control. He
asserts the crane’s un-commanded movement caused a large furnace door to swing into him,
pinning him against a factory wall and causing substantial, permanent, and painful injury. Mrs.
Balwin claims these long-lasting injuries resulted in her loss of consortium.
A. Pleading Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint “contain a short and
plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Supreme Court
clarified this standard in Twombly, holding that a “complaint must contain enough facts to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561. Further, a complaint
must contain more than conclusory statements or recitation of claim elements. Id. at 557. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals interprets these findings to mandate three pleading
requirements: that the plaintiff puts the defendant on notice regarding her claims; that the court
must accept factual allegation as true, but some claims will be so sketchy they fail to provide the
defendant notice; and courts should not accept a mere recitation of the elements of a claim as
sufficient. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). The question the Court should ask
2
is “could these things have happened” not “did these things happen.” Estate of Davis v. Wells
Fargo Bank, 633 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 2011).
B. Plaintiff’s Complaint Alleges Sufficient Facts to Show Entitlement to Relief
In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege Mr. Baldwin used a remote control unit to
control a crane in a steel plant. They maintain the remote control was designed, manufactured,
and placed in the stream of commerce by Defendants. Plaintiffs claim the crane failed to respond
to Mr. Baldwin’s proper operation of the remote control. The crane then collided with other
factory equipment, resulting in injury to Plaintiffs.
Defendants counter that Plaintiffs failed to identify a specific design defect or
manufacturing error. They maintain that Plaintiffs’ claims force them to guess at what defect
may be present in the product. They compare this case to a New York district court case,
American Guarantee Life Ins. Co. v. Cirrus Design Corp, 2010 WL 5480775 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
In that case, a small aircraft suddenly lost altitude and crashed. Id. at *1. Witnesses said that the
aircraft wobbled before the crash and the pilot appeared to be struggling to control the aircraft.
Id. at *2. The plaintiff in that case alleged “certain defects” of that airplane model’s flight control
system caused the crash. Id. The court noted the complaint failed to identify a specific
component failure of the hundreds that controlled the aircraft’s flight surfaces. Id. On that basis,
the court determined it could not draw a reasonable inference that the claim was plausible, and
dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Id. at *4.
The Court finds Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficient. Their claim is that Defendant’s remote
control did not properly respond to Mr. Baldwin’s commands, causing injury. The legal theories
of relief, namely defects in manufacturing or design, or negligence in maintenance, and others
3
may be further refined during discovery. Accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, the
Court finds that Defendants are put on notice of Plaintiffs’ claims, and the allegations are not “so
sketchy” that they fail to provide notice to Defendants of the claims at issue. The Cirrus case is
not binding on the Court and is factually distinguishable. Defendants here do not face a
scavenger-hunt through airplane wreckage looking to disprove a design or manufacturing defect
among hundreds of components on the basis of third-hand eyewitness reports. The specific
sender-receiver unit here is identified, readily discoverable, and Plaintiffs allege specifically that
a crane under the unit’s control failed to respond to Mr. Baldwin’s commands. In short, the Court
finds that the answer is “Yes” to the question “Could these things have happened?”
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DE 10) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on August 5, 2011.
S/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?