Martin v. Graves et al
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered 1) Pla's 39 Motion to Dismiss this matter without prejudice is DENIED. 2) Dfts' 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/18/2011. (SCD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
DARI MARTIN,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC, )
AND TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, )
)
Defendants.
)
**
**
Civil Action No. 5:09-381-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
**
**
**
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment [DE 33], as well as Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
[DE 39] her claims without prejudice.
The Court being adequately
advised, these motions are ripe for decision.
In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that
Plaintiff’s claims must fail because she can present no evidence to
support her averments of design defect or breach of warranty with
respect to the Toyota Prius which is the subject of this action.
Defendants also argue that, as a passenger and neither a purchaser
nor an owner of the Prius, Plaintiff was not in privity of contract
with any of the Defendants, and, thus, Defendants could not have
breached an expressed or implied warranty as to her.
Finally,
Defendants argue that they are due the presumption announced in KRS
411.310(2) – that the vehicle was not defective – because the proof
-1-
demonstrates that the Prius complied with the prevailing motor
vehicle safety standards, specifically all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards and because Plaintiff cannot, in any
event, rebut it by a preponderence of the evidence to the contrary.
In lieu of filing a Response, stating her objections to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff Dari Martin has filed a
Motion to voluntarily dismiss this action [DE 39], presumably
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
She requests dismissal without
prejudice on the grounds that “the cost of pursuing the claim in
the within matter may far exceed any benefit that she may recover.”
Since Defendants have served both an answer and a motion for
summary
judgment
in
this
matter
and
have
not
joined
in
a
stipulation of dismissal with Plaintiff, the relief Plaintiff seeks
must be obtained under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), which provides
that an action may be dismissed “on terms the court considers
proper.”
The Court has carefully considered the matter and
concludes that it would be inappropriate to dismiss Plaintiff’s
claims
without
articulated
a
prejudice
reason
to
if
Defendants
dismiss
her
have
claims
successfully
with
prejudice.
Although it may not be cost-effective to pursue the present
litigation further, as Plaintiff explains in her Motion to Dismiss,
the parties have litigated this matter for well over a year, the
period for discovery has concluded, and Defendants have requested
a decision on the merits of the case by virtue of their Motion for
-2-
Summary Judgment.
Regardless of her reason for declining to prosecute this
matter
further,
Plaintiff
elected
not
respond
to
Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment even though she had been advised by
virtue of this Court’s scheduling order, as well as Local Rule 7.1,
that “[f]ailure to respond to a motion shall be grounds for the
Court to conclude that any arguments in opposition thereto have
been waived.” DE 13 (citing Humphrey v. U.S. Attorney Gen. Office,
No. 07-3740, 2008 WL 2080512 (6th Cir. May 15, 2008)]; LR 7.1(c)
(“Failure to timely respond to a motion may be grounds for granting
the motion.”).
Thus, the Court has considered Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment with the knowledge that Plaintiff has failed
to object and waived any arguments contrary to those presented in
the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Rule
56
provides
that
“[t]he
court
shall
grant
summary
judgment if the movant shows that 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(a).
Here, Defendants have
shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
that Plaintiff cannot establish satisfy her burden with respect to
a prima facie case of crashworthiness, related to the design of the
Prius, because there is no evidence of a feasible alternative safer
design with respect to either the Prius’ seatbelt system or side
airbag system of which she complains, a necessary element of such
-3-
a claim per Toyota Motor Corp. v. Gregory, 136 S.W.3d 35, 41 (Ky.
2004).
Further, Plaintiff has not set forth evidence that would
support her that she suffered enhanced injuries due to defective
design because she has set forth no evidence of how her injuries
might have differed or been prevented if a different seat belt or
airbag system design had been used.
See Toyota, 136 S.W.3d at 41.
Neither can Plaintiff succeed with respect to her breach of
warranty claim because no evidence shows that she was in privity of
contract with Toyota.
See Williams v. Fulmer, 695 S.W.2d 411, 414
(Ky. 1985) (“. . . beneficiaries of implied warranties are limited
to the purchaser and to ‘any natural person who is in the family or
household of [the] buyer or who is a guest in his home.’”).
Ultimately,
Plaintiff’s
claims
fail,
and
they
shall
be
dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 39] this matter
without prejudice is DENIED; and
(2)
that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 33] is
GRANTED.
This the 18th day of May, 2011.
-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?