Johnson v. Kraft Foods et al

Filing 25

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23 ) may proceed. Clerk of Court shall file the Amended Complaint (Previously filed by clerk on 10/27/2017; ECF No. 23 .) Clerk shall issue summons to Defendants named in the complaint and deliver the summons to the USM for service. Henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or their attorney a copy of every document submitted for consideration by the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/31/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 10/31/2017 to reflect USM-285 forms mailed to P 11/1/2017 (DRM).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KRAFT FOODS dba MAXWELL HOUSE, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00042-MMD-GWF
ORDER

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on the Screening of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

13

(ECF No. 23), filed on October 27, 2017. Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status on

14

October 2, 2017. See Screening Order (ECF No. 22).

15

BACKGROUND

16

Plaintiff brings this “tort action” and alleges that Defendants violated his civil rights

17

because they were negligent in failing to place warning labels on their coffee products, which

18

contain caffeine. Plaintiff asserts that due to Defendants’ negligence, he now suffers from

19

insomnia, hypertension, kidney and liver damage, migraines, mild heart murmurs, mild heart

20

attacks, constant anxiety and fear of death, tooth decay, painful withdrawals and a life-long addition

21

to Defendants’ products. Had Defendants placed warning labels on their products, Plaintiff

22

contends that he would have been able to make an informed decision on whether or how much

23

coffee to consume. Plaintiff now seeks punitive and compensatory damages.

24
25

DISCUSSION
I.

Screening the Amended Complaint

26

Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

27

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

28

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims

1

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §

3

1915A(b)(1),(2).

4

In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, pursuant to the PLRA, a federal

5

court must dismiss a prisoner’s claims, “if the allegation of poverty is untrue,” or if the action “is

6

frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary

7

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of

8

a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is provided for in Federal

9

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Court applies the same standard under Section 1915(e)(2)

10
11

when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or amended complaint.
Review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See

12

Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure

13

to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support

14

of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th

15

Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the Court takes as true all allegations of material fact

16

stated in the complaint, and the Court construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

17

See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). Allegations in a pro se complaint

18

are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe,

19

449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). While the

20

standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide

21

more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-

22

1965 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id., See

23

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

24

All or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may therefore be dismissed sua sponte if the

25

prisoner’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal

26

conclusions that are untenable (e.g. claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims

27

of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful

28

factual allegations (e.g. fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
2

1

327-28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

2

II.

Instant Complaint

3

A.

4

In Nevada, when bringing a strict product liability failure-to-warn case, the plaintiff carries

Plaintiff’s Claims Under a Theory of Negligence/Products Liability

5

the burden of proving, in part, that the inadequate warning caused his injuries. Sims v. General

6

Telephone & Electronics, 107 Nev. 516, 524, 815 P.2d 151, 156 (1991), overruled on other

7

grounds by Tucker v. Action Equip. and Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349, 1356 n. 4, 951 P.2d 1027,

8

1031 n. 4 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 122

9

Nev. 1213, 148 P.3d 684 (2006). To successfully prove a failure-to-warn case, a plaintiff must

10

produce evidence demonstrating the same elements as in other strict product liability cases: “(1) the

11

product had a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous, (2) the defect existed at the time

12

the product left the manufacturer, and (3) the defect caused the plaintiff's injury.” See Fyssakis v.

13

Knight Equipment Corp., 108 Nev. 212, 214, 826 P.2d 570, 571 (1992). A product may be found

14

unreasonably dangerous and defective if the manufacturer failed to provide an adequate warning.

15

See Yamaha Motor Co. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 238–39, 955 P.2d 661, 665 (1998). Further, the

16

burden of proving causation can be satisfied in failure-to-warn cases by demonstrating that a

17

different warning would have altered the way the plaintiff used the product or would have

18

“prompted plaintiff to take precautions to avoid the injury.” See Riley v. American Honda Motor

19

Co., Inc., 259 Mont. 128, 856 P.2d 196, 198 (1993). Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ products

20

contain caffeine, which is a stimulant that affects the heart and nervous system. Because of this,

21

Plaintiff believes that the products are a “drug” that warrants warning labels. Defendants allegedly

22

failed to provide warning labels, and Plaintiff argues that had Defendants’ products been

23

adequately labeled he would not have consumed as much coffee and suffered the alleged injuries.

24

Taking the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as true, Plaintiff has arguably stated a claim against

25

Defendants based on products liability.

26

To state a claim for negligence in Nevada, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) that defendant

27

owed him a duty of care; (2) that defendant breached this duty of care; (3) that the breach was the

28

legal cause of plaintiff's injury; and (4) that the complainant suffered damages. See Hammerstein v.
3

1

Jean Dev. W., 907 P.2d 975, 977 (Nev.1995); see also Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 109 Nev.

2

1096, 1100, 864 P.2d 796, 798 (1993). Plaintiff argues that Defendants had a duty to warn

3

consumers about the harmful effects of their products. He asserts that Defendants allegedly

4

breached this duty and that breach was the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, which resulted in damages.

5

Therefore, Plaintiff has pled the elements of a negligence claim and the Court will allow his

6

amended complaint to proceed.

7

The Court recognizes that the allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are borderline

8

frivolous but is unable to make that a conclusive determination so as to preclude this case from

9

proceeding at this time.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint may proceed.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the Amended Complaint

13

(ECF No. 23).

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue summons to

15

Defendants named in the complaint and deliver the summons to the U.S. Marshal for service. The

16

Clerk of the Court shall send the required USM-285 forms to Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall have twenty

17

(20) days to furnish the required USM-285 forms to the U.S. Marshal at 333 Las Vegas Blvd.

18

South, Suite 2058, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101. After Plaintiff receives copies of the completed

19

USM-285 forms from the U.S. Marshal, he has twenty (20) days to file a notice with the court

20

identifying if Defendants were served. If Plaintiff wishes to have the U.S. Marshal attempt service

21

again on any unserved defendant, then a motion must be filed with the court identifying the

22

unserved defendant, specifying a more detailed name and address and indicating whether some

23

other manner of service should be used. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

24

Procedure, service must be accomplished within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date that

25

the complaint was filed.

26

...

27

...

28

...
4

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants, or

2

their attorney if they have retained one, a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document

3

submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper submitted

4

for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to

5

Defendants or their counsel. The Court may disregard any paper received by a district judge,

6

magistrate judge, or the Clerk which fails to include a certificate of service.

7

DATED this 31st day of October, 2017.

8
9
10

GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5