Gustin v. Plano Molding Company et al

Filing 186

ORDER denying ECF No. #157 Motion to Reconsider; granting ECF No. #165 Amended Motion for Court Approval of Settlement and Minor's Compromise; denying as moot ECF Nos. #161 Motion for Summary Judgment and #175 Motion to Shorten Time; and directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/6/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

_____________________________________
CARMEN GUSTIN,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

vs.
DOSKOCIL MANUFACTURING CO.,

11

Defendant.

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

2:14-cv-00700-RCJ-CWH
ORDER

12
These consolidated cases arise out of a shooting resulting from an allegedly defective gun

13
14

case. Pending before the Court are a Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 157) and an Amended

15

Motion for Court Approval of Settlement and Minor’s Compromise (ECF No. 165). The Court

16

denies the motion to reconsider and grants the motion to approve minor’s compromise.

17

I.

18

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff Carmen Gustin’s ten-year-old son Cole was playing in his

19

home when he found a Doskocil gun case secured with two padlocks. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9–

20

10, ECF No. 135). Without unlocking or removing either lock, Cole pulled a pistol out of the

21

case and shot himself in the head, causing serious injury. (Id. ¶ 12).

22

On March 20, 2014, Cole sued Defendants Plano Molding Co. (“Plano”) and Doskocil

23

Manufacturing Co. (“Doskocil”) in state court through his guardian ad litem for strict liability

24
1 of 3

1

and negligence. Plano removed, and the case was assigned to this Court as case number 2:14-cv-

2

700. Plano moved for summary judgment based on evidence that it had not obtained the molds

3

to make cases like the one at issue here until after the case was sold. The Court granted the

4

motion, leaving Doskocil as the sole remaining Defendant in the ‘700 Case. Those claims

5

remain for trial.

6

On November 17, 2014, Carmen sued Plano and Doskocil in state court on her own

7

behalf for strict liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”).

8

Defendants removed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and the case was assigned to Judge

9

Mahan as case number 2:15-cv-589. The parties stipulated to consolidate the ‘589 Case into the

10

‘700 Case, with the latter case as the lead case. Doskocil moved to dismiss the FAC based on

11

the statute of limitations, and the Court granted the motion, with leave to amend to allege facts

12

concerning the discovery rule. Carmen filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), 1 and

13

Doskocil moved to dismiss it under the statute of limitations, arguing that the discovery rule does

14

not apply to the claims in this case. The Court granted the motion.

15

Carmen has asked the Court to reconsider dismissal of the ‘589 Case under the statute of

16

limitations. The Court declines to reconsider. Furthermore, Cole has asked the Court to approve

17

a settlement of his claims in the ‘700 Case, and no party has objected. As noted at the hearing,

18

the Court grants that motion.

19
20
21
22
23
24

1 The caption

of the SAC lists case number 2:14-cv-700. That appears to have been in error.
Cole’s claims are at issue in the ‘700 Case. In that case, Cole’s claims for strict liability and
negligence remain as against Doskocil. The SAC is an amendment of Carmen’s claims in the
‘589 Case for NIED, negligence, and strict liability against Doskocil. It is not a consolidated
pleading with the remaining claims in the ‘700 Case. In other words, there remain two separate
(though consolidated) cases with their own operative complaints, and the SAC filed at Docket
No. 135 should contain the case number 2:15-cv-589. Also, the caption of the SAC lists Plano as
a Defendant, but Plano is not listed as a party in the body of the SAC, and the Court perceives
this to also be an error in the caption of the SAC.
2 of 3

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court previously ruled that the statutory text indicated that the discovery rule did not

3

apply to claims governed by Nevada Revised Statutes section 11.190(4)(e), which includes

4

personal injury claims like the present one. There was no controlling authority on the issue, but

5

the Nevada Supreme Court had explicitly so ruled in an unpublished opinion, and the Court

6

independently agreed with the analysis. Carmen has asked the Court to reconsider. The Court

7

will not reconsider, because there was no clear error of law. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS,

8

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). As Defendant notes, Carmen cites only to federal

9

district court opinions and another unpublished opinion of the Nevada Supreme Court. And in

10

the latter case, the application of the discovery rule did not matter, because the Court found that

11

the limitations period had run even assuming the discovery rule applied.
CONCLUSION

12
13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 157) is DENIED.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Motion for Court Approval of Settlement

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

and Minor’s Compromise (ECF No. 165) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 161) and
the Motion to Shorten Time (ECF No. 175) are DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment in Case No. 2:14-cv700 and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of July, 2016.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

24
3 of 3