Halsey et al v. AGCO Corporation et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/30/2017.(SCD)cc: COR

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SCOTT HALSEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AGCO CORPORATION, et al.,, Defendants. Civil Case No. 16-cv-461-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *** This matter is before the Court upon Defendant The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 37]. There has been no Response, and the Motion is unopposed. “The 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). genuinely “A party disputed asserting must that support a the fact cannot assertion by be . citing . . to particular parts of materials in the record, including . . . affidavits. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). In Plaintiff’s Complaint [DE 1-2], they aver that they were injured by Defendants as a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff Scott Halsey’s use of an AGCO tractor equipped with “Titan/Goodyear” tires, which were sold and distributed in a defective condition due to their defective design or manufacture; that Defendants failed to warn Plaintiffs of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition; that Defendants negligently designed, manufactured, and sold or allowed to be sold the AGCO tractor and Defendants were negligent per distribution, marketing, and “Titan/Goodyear” se in sale of the design, the AGCO tires; that production, tractor and “Titan/Goodyear” tires to the general public; that Defendants breached their express warranties that the AGCO tractor and the “Titan/Goodyear” tire was safe and fit for a particular purpose and use for which it was intended; and that that Defendants breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose of the AGCO tractor and the “Titan/Goodyear” tires. In each instance, the claims against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufacture, or turn sale on of its the involvement tire at bar, in which the design, the moving defendant disclaims. In support of its motion, Defendant cites the affidavit of Jay Ogden, Director of Tire Technology for Titan Tire Corporation, who affies that “the tire at issue is a Titanbranded tire” and “not a Goodyear tire manufactured by Titan Tire Corporation.” [DE 37-2.] He further affies that “Goodyear did not design, manufacture or distribute the tire at issue” and that “he is not aware of there being any Goodyear tire involved in this matter.” [Id.] Defendant The Goodyear Tire and Rubber 2 Company argues that, because there is no evidence that it designed, manufactured, or distributed the tires at issue nor is it averred that it had any other involvement with the matters averred in this case, the claims against it fail as a matter of law and summary judgment is appropriate. The Court agrees, and the claims against this defendant shall be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1987). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 37] is GRANTED. This the 30th day of May, 2017. 3

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?