Fulford et al v. Climbtek, Inc.

Filing 235

RULING AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 179 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 10/28/2019. (KAH) Modified on 10/28/2019 to edit the text (KAH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARVIN FULFORD, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
CLIMBTEK, INC., ET AL. NO: 16-00016-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 179)
filed by Plaintiffs. Defendants have filed a response in opposition (Doc. 212). For the
following reasons, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 179) is

GRANTED.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This suit arises out of an allegedly defective ladder. (Doc. 102 at ^ 6). On
February 2, 2015, Marvin Fulford was allegedly servicing a suspended heating unit
in Winnsboro, Louisiana while standing on an articulated ladder when it collapsed.
Id. Mr. Fulford then allegedly fell, fractured his spine, and suffered a traumatic brain
injury. Id. Plaintiffs filed the instant action on January 8, 2016. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs
brought claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, claiming that the ladder
was defective and unreasonably dangerous. {Id. at p. 2). On June 30, 2017, the

Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended
Complaint, which named Michigan Ladder Company, LLC and Michigan Ladder
Company, Inc. as defendants, among others. (Doc. 101). On August 9, 2019, Plaintiffs

filed the motion for partial summary judgment before the Court. (Doc. 179).
Plaintiffs move the Court to render summary judgment declaring that 1) Michigan
Ladder Company, Inc. is the manufacturer of the Glimbtek ladder, 2) Michigan
Ladder Company, LLC is the successor in interest of Michigan Ladder Company, Inc.,

and 3) Michigan Ladder Company, LLC is therefore the manufacturer of the
Climbtek ladder. Id.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDi
A. The Relationship between Michigan Ladder Company, Inc. and the
Climbtek Ladder.
Michigan Ladder Company, Inc. was a ladder manufacturer formed in- 1901.
(Doc. 179-1 at 2). Its office was located at 12 E. Forest Ave. in Ypsilanti, Michigan.

Id. Michigan Ladder Company, Inc. owned Climbtek, Inc. (Id. at p. 4). Michigan
Ladder Company, Inc/s office was used to conduct business relating to Climbtek
ladders. {Id. at p. 3). Climbtek ladders were distributed from Michigan Ladder
Company, Inc. s office, and communications from companies, third-party vendors,
and consumers regarding CIimbtek ladders were directed there. (Id. at p. 3-5).

Michigan Ladder Company, Inc. s website referred to the Climbtek ladder as "Our
articulating Climbtek ladder and stated that the ladder used "our exclusive precision
locking hinge and patented- one hand release rod. {Id. at p. 2). When Climbtek, Inc.

1 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) provides that each opposition to a motion for summary judgment
shall include a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which the opponent
contends there exists a genuine issue to be tried. All material facts set forth in the statement served
by the moving party will be deemed admitted unless controverted as required by the Rule. Defendants
did not file a statement of the material facts as to which they contend there exists a genuine issue to
be tried. Accordingly, the facts which Plaintiffs contend there is no genuine issue to be tried are
deemed- admitted.

After a proper motion for summary judgment is made, the nonmovant "must
set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Andersoiz v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (internal citations omitted). At that moment,
the court does not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve
factual disputes. Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir.

1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992). However, if "the evidence in the record is
such that a reasonable jury, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party,
could arrive at a verdict in that party's favor, the motion for summary judgment
must be denied. Id.

The nonmovant s burden is not satisfied by some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts, or by conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or a mere

scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp,, 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmovant
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

IV. DISCUSSION
Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, manufacturer" means a person
or entity who is in the business of manufacturing a product for placement into trade
or commerce. La. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.53. Manufacturer also refers to a person or

entity who labels a product as his or her own or who otherwise holds himself or herself
out to be the manufacturer of the product. Id. Defendants did not file a statement of

material facts disputing Plaintiffs facts establishing that Michigan Ladder Company,

Inc. is the manufacturer of the Climbtek ladder, which are described above.

Accordingly, summary judgment on this issue is granted in favor of Plaintiffs.
Moving on to the issue of the relationship between Michigan Ladder Company,
Inc. and Michigan Ladder Company, LLC, under Louisiana law, a purchaser
corporation is generally not liable for the assets of the corporation that it acquires.

Monroe v. McDaniel, 207 So. 3d 1172, 1180 (La. Ct App. 2016) (quoting Golden State
Bottling Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 414 U.S. 168, 182 n.5 (1973)).
However, it is liable where the purchaser is merely a continuation of the selling
corporation. Id. To establish that a purchaser is a mere continuation of the acquired
company, the purchaser must have purchased all or substantially all the assets of
another." J.D. Fields & Co. v. Nottingham Construction Co., LLC, 184 So.3d 99, 103
(La. Ct. App. 2015). Next, courts must consider a variety of factors, including whether
the "successor corporation retains the predecessor corporation's employees;
represents that it is a continuation of the predecessor enterprise; retains the
supervisory personnel of the predecessor; retains the same production facilities in the
same physical location; produces the same product; retains the predecessor s name;
and continues the predecessors general business operations. Allstate Lzs. Co. v. Wal-

Mart, No. CIV. A. 98-1923, 2000 WL 388844, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 13, 2000).
Plaintiffs' evidence, which has been deemed admitted by Defendants, reveals
that Michigan Ladder Company, LLC is merely a continuation of Michigan Ladder
Company, Inc. Michigan Ladder Company, LLC purchased Michigan Ladder
Company, Inc. in February 2014. Further, Michigan Ladder Company, LLC retained

at least eleven of Michigan Ladder Company, Inc. s employees, including high-level
employees such as the comptroller, plant manager, sales manager, and dock
supervisor, as well as corporate officers such as Harrison. Michigan Ladder
Company, LLC's office is located at 12 E. Forest Ave. inYpsilanti, Michigan, the same

physical location as M'ichigan Ladder Company, Inc. s office. Finally, Michigan
Ladder Company, LLC retained Michigan Ladder Company, Inc. s name. For these
reasons, Michigan Ladder Company, LLC is deemed, under law, to be the successor

in interest of Michigan Ladder Company, Inc.

V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Doc. 179) is GRANTED.

2?-^

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this fc*° day of October, 2019.

^

.^v

JUDGE BRIAN^. J^KSON
UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA