NAGY v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

Filing 18

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 3/28/2013. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILLIAM NAGY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 12-4235 (MAS) (DEA)

v.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE &
RUBBER CO.,

OPINION

Defendant.

SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 's
("Defendant" or "Goodyear") Motion to Dismiss the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth causes of action of
the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). (Def.'s Br., ECF
No. 4-1; Def.'s Reply Br., ECF No. 11-l.) Plaintiff William Nagy ("Plaintiff') opposes the
Motion.

(PI.'s Opp'n Br., ECF No.9.)

The Court has carefully considered the Parties'

submissions and decided the matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78. For the reasons
set forth in this Opinion, and other good cause shown, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs July 10, 2012 Complaint alleges defects

In

the Entran 3 hose designed,

manufactured, tested, marketed, and sold by Goodyear for use in hydronic in-floor radiant
heating and snowmelt systems. (Compl.

~~

2-3.) The Complaint asserts six counts: 1) strict

liability for design defect; 2) strict liability for manufacturing defect; 3) shict liability for failure

to warn; 4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; 5) breach of implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose; 6) unjust enrichment; and 7) declaratory and injunctive relief.
(Compl.

~~

48-99.) Defendant has moved to dismiss the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth causes of action,

arguing that they are subsumed by the New Jersey Product Liability Act ("NJPLA"). (Def. 's
Moving Br. 2-3.) According to Defendant:
The tenns of the statute, as well as abundant decisional law interpreting the
statute, explicitly provide that the [NJPLA] shall be the only remedy available in a
product liability action. Indeed, the New Jersey state courts, as well as those of
the Third Circuit and the District of New Jersey, have consistently held that when
the claim alleged falls within the scope of the [NJPLA], other causes of action are
prohibited.
(Jd. at 2.)

Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion, arguing that "Plaintiffs system has not failed yet
but [Plaintiff] has alleged the system is defective and will prematurely fail in the future." (Pl.'s
Opp'n Br. 2.) Plaintiff asserts that the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth "cause[s] of action are plead in the
alternative if it is detennined that plaintiff and members of the class have not suffered injury to
other property or personal injuries as required by the NJPLA." Jd.
In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs opposition brief demonstrates that he does not
have standing to pursue his claims. (Def. 's Reply Br. 2.) As such, Defendant requests the Court
to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety. Jd.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only 'a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to give the defendant fair notice of
what the ... claim is and the grounds on which it rests." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). On a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, a "defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been

presented." Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). "As a general matter, a
district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may not consider matters extraneous to the
pleadings." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). As
such, a court may only consider the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of
public record, and undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon
these documents. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Cons 01. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d
Cir. 1993).
A district court conducts a three-part analysis when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560,563 (3d Cir. 2011). "First, the court must 'tak[e] note of the
elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. '" Jd. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
675 (2009)). Second, the court must accept as true all of a plaintiffs well-pleaded factual
allegations and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Fowler v.

UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). The court, however, must disregard any
conclusory allegations proffered in the complaint. Id. Once the well-pleaded facts have been
identified and the conclusory allegations ignored, a court must next determine whether the "facts
alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief. '"

Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
The NJPLA governs "any claim or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by a
product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by
breach of an express warranty."

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1(b)(3).

Notably, the NJPLA

"established the sole method to prosecute a product liability action." Tirrell v. Navistar Int'l,

Inc., 248 N.J. Super. 390, 398 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991). According to the Third Circuit,
the NJPLA "effectively creates an exclusive statutory cause of action for claims falling within its

purview." Repola v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 934 F.2d 483, 492 (3d Cir. 1991). "[T]he NJPLA
generally subsumes common law product liability claims, thus establishing itself as the sole basis
of relief under New Jersey law available to consumers injured by a defective product." Id.
Notably, "breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment and consumer fraud claims are
subsumed under the NJPLA." Arlandson v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 691, 704
(D.N.J. 2011) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-l(b)(3).) The NJPLA excludes causes of action
alleging damage to the product at issue. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-l b(2).
Third Circuit law requires dismissal of Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and Sixth causes of
action. In his opposition brief, Plaintiff states:
Claims for solely economic damages related to the product itself are not covered
by the NJPLA .... For causes of action to the product itself, plaintiff may bring
an implied warranty claim .... Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff may bring a
claim for implied warranty and other causes of action even when malfunction of
the product has not occurred, harm has not been caused to other property or
plaintiff has not suffered personal injuries.
(PI.'s Opp'n Br. 4.) Regardless of the arguments contained in Plaintiffs opposition brief, the
factual allegations in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth causes of action appear to be based on harm
caused by the alleged defects in Entran 3 hoses, not based on harm caused to the Entran 3 hoses
themselves. l

While the Court acknowledges that pleading in the alternative is generally

permitted, Plaintiffs alternative pleading cannot survive in the present case due to the NJPLA.
If the Court permitted the alternative pleading in the manner attempted by Plaintiff, it would
"contravene the NJPLA's intent to provide a single statutory products liability claim." Repola,
934 F.2d at 493. As such, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth,

1 For example, the Complaint's Fourth Cause of Action, ~ 82 and Fifth Cause of Action, ~ 93,
both refer to "significant damage to property" and "repairs necessitated by the leaks." Neither
refers to damage to the hose itself.

Fifth and Sixth claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to file an amended complaint within
30 days.
The Court denies without prejudice Defendant's request to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint
in its entirety.

Plaintiffs opposition papers demonstrate that Plaintiff anticipated a potential

standing challenge to his NJPLA claims when he chose to plead in the alternative. Nevertheless,
the Court is not inclined to dismiss Plaintiffs NJPLA claims solely based on arguments raised in
the opposition and reply briefs. Rather, complete briefing on the standing issue is warranted and
will provide an appropriate record for the Court. 2

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, and for other good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that

Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and Sixth
claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to file an amended complaint. The Court denies
without prejudice Defendant's request to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint in its entirety. The Court
will issue an Order consistent with this Opinion.

sl Michael A. Shipp
MICHAEL

A. SHIPP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 28, 2013

2 As set forth above, the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended Complaint.
If
Plaintiffs amended complaint includes NJPLA claims, Defendant may assert and brief its
standing arguments. If Plaintiff does not file an amended Complaint, the Court will issue an
Order to Show Cause as to why the NJPLA claims should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
Under either alternative, the Court will have the benefit of a complete record.