CHENG v. ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al

Filing 19

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 10/23/13. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ZHENPING CHENG,
Plaintiff,
v.

:

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

OPINION
Civil Action No, 2:l3cv-0l2l0 (DMC) (JBC)

ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
D/B/A/ RYOBI POWER TOOLS,
XIAOBO YU, JUANJUAN MA.
ZHIYONG BAO,
Defendants.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH. U.S.D..J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon motion by One World Technologies. Inc. d/b/a
Rvobi Power Tools (‘Defendant One World”) to dismiss the punitive and/or exemplary damage
claims in the Complaint filed by Zhenping Cheng (“Plaintiff’), pursuant to FED, R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, Mar. 12, 2013. ECF No. 5). Pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 78.
no oral argument was heard. Based on the following and for the reasons expressed herein.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all punitive and/or exemplary damages in Plaintiff’s Complaint
is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND’

PlaintilE Zhenping Cheng, was hired by Zhiyong Bao (Defendant Bao”) in early December
2010 to work on various renovation and construction projects. (Compi.

1

¶ 8).

Defendant Bao

The facts set forth in this Opinion are taken from the parties’ respective moving papers and tiings.

provided all the tools used for the projects. (Compi.

ii). On March 18, 2011. Defendant Bao

instructed Plaintiff to begin a renovation project at the home of Xiaobo Yu and Juanjuan Ma
(collectively “Defendant Yu”) in Miliburn, New Jersey. (Compl.

¶

12). On that day, Plaintiff’s

left hand was severely cut by the blade of an electric table saw provided by Defendant Bao.
(Compl.

¶

14). As a result of the injury, the middle and ring fingers of Plaintiff’s left hand were

amputated and his index finger is seriously disfigured. (Compi, ¶ 1 6). One World manufactures
and distributes the electric table saw that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injury. (Compi.

18).

On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant One World, Defendant
Yu and Defendant Bao (the ‘Complaint”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, defective design and failure to warn against Defendant One World and negligence
claims against Defendants Yu and Bao. For all claims, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
punitive and/or exemplary damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. On March 1 2.
2013, Defendant One World filed this Motion to Dismiss all punitive and/or exemplary damages
claims in the
IL
in

complaint

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can he granted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court is required to accept as true all

factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the facts alleged in the light most
favorable to the [Plaintiffj.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir, 2008).
“[A] complaint attacked by a

.

.

.

motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.”

Bell AtL Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, the Plaintiff’s “obligation to
provide the ‘grounds’ of his entitie[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions,
and

a

formulaic recitation

of

the elements ofa cause

omitted). “[A court is] not bound to

accept as true a

2

of action

will not do.” Id. (internal citations

legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265. 286 (1986). instead, assuming that the factual
allegations in the complaint are true, those “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above a speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains sufficient factual matter to “slate a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing

Twomblv. 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded lhctual content
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct
alleged.” Id. ‘Determining whether the allegations in a complaint are ‘plausible’ is a ‘contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Young v. Speziale, Civ. No. 07-03129, 2009 WL 3806296, at *3 (D,N.J, Nov. 10, 2009)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). “[Wjhere the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not shown’—
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” iqbal. 556 U.S. at 679.
HI,

i)ISCUSS1ON

Defendant One World asserts that Plaintiffs complaint fails to present any facts that would
entitle Plaintiff to punitive and/or exemplary damages. As Defendant One World notes, under
New Jersey’s Punitive Damages Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.9 to 5.17, punitive damages may not be
imposed in the absence of ‘clear and convincing evidence” of “actual malice” or “wanton and
willful disregard” of foreseeable harm to others. N.J.5.A. 2A: 15-.12(a).

According to

I)efendant One World. Plaintiffs complaint only sets forth garden variety design defect
allegations and does not articulate any egregious conduct by Defendant One World that would
support a claim for punitive damages.
“The propriety of punitive damages is determined by a plaintiffs proof” Naporano Iron &

3

Metal Co. v. Am. Crane Corp., 79 F,Supp. 2d 494, 512 (D,N.J. 1999). As such, the Court finds

that dismissal of Plaintiffs punitive damages claims at this early stage of litigation is premature.
See Naoiao, 79 F.Supp. 2d. at 5 1 2-i 3 (denying motion to dismiss non-barred punitive
damages claims as premature); Domm v. Jersey Printing Co., 871 F.Supp. 732, 739 (D.N,J.
1 994) (denying motion for summary judgment on punitive damages as premature because “issue
of punitive damages is a fact question which should be decided by a jury”). Therefore,
Defendant One World’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs punitive damages claims is denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant One World’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

M. Cavanaugh,

Date:
Original:
cc:

October
2013
Cierk’s Office
Hon. James B. Clark, U.S.M,J.
All Counsel of Record
File

4