BNSF Railway Company v. Seats, Incorporated

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Clerk of Court shall reactivate as a pending motion the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Seats, Inc., (Filing No. 8 ). Defendant Seats, Inc., shall file an updated brief in suppo rt of its Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 8 ) on or before September 27, 2018, 2018; Plaintiff BNSF shall file a brief opposing the Motion to Dismiss within 21 days after the Defendant's brief is filed and served; and Defendant shall file a responsive brief within 7 days after the Plaintiff's brief in opposition is filed and served. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (LKO)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation authorized to
do business in Nebraska,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEATS, INCORPORATED, a
Wisconsin Corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:16CV3121

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court after remand by the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals (Filing No. 24), which reversed this court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal
of all of Plaintiff BNSF’s claims against Defendant Seats, Inc., based on preemption
by the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), 49 U.S.C. § 20701, et seq. (Filing No. 16.)
Specifically, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this court’s dismissal of all
of BNSF’s claims:
Count I:
Count II:
Count III:
Count IV:

Products Liability (Negligence)
Products Liability (Strict Liability)
Breach of Contract (Third-Party Beneficiary)
Equitable Subrogation, Indemnity, or Contribution

Because this court dismissed all of BNSF’s claims based upon LIA preemption,
it did not consider the other arguments for dismissal asserted by Seats, Inc.—that is,
Count III should be dismissed because BNSF was not an intended third-party
beneficiary of the contract under which the allegedly defective seat was sold, and
Count IV should be dismissed because Seats, Inc., and BNSF did not share a common
liability, which is a prerequisite to recovery under theories of indemnity, contribution,

and subrogation. (Def’s Br. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss, Filing No. 9 at CM/ECF p. 2.) In
its opinion reversing this court’s preemption decision, the Court of Appeals remanded
the matter to this court to consider Seats, Inc.’s alternative arguments for dismissal “in
the first instance.” (Filing No. 24 at CM/ECF pp. 6-7.)
Because the Motion to Dismiss that was the basis for the above-described
appellate proceedings was filed almost two years ago (Filing No. 8), and because case
law may have developed since that time that applies to this court’s analysis of the
remaining two issues to be decided, I shall order the parties to submit updated
briefing.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
The Clerk of Court shall reactivate as a pending motion the Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Seats, Inc., (Filing
No. 8); and
2.
Defendant Seats, Inc., shall file an updated brief in support of its Motion
to Dismiss (Filing No. 8) on or before September 27, 2018, 2018; Plaintiff BNSF shall
file a brief opposing the Motion to Dismiss within 21 days after the Defendant’s brief
is filed and served; and Defendant shall file a responsive brief within 7 days after the
Plaintiff’s brief in opposition is filed and served.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
2