KARLSON v. DEMATIC CORPORATION et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 8/24/2016. (km)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 16-321 (MAS) (TJB)
GENE KARLSON,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
DEMATIC CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Amazon.com Inc., Amazon
Fulfillment Services, Inc. (collectively, "Amazon"), and Dematic Corp.'s 1 ("Dematic",
collectively with Amazon, "Moving Defendants") motions to dismiss Plaintiff Gene Karlson's
("Plaintiff' or "Mr. Karlson") Complaint. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) Plaintiff filed a cross-motion to
remand (ECF No. 11 ), and Moving Defendants replied (ECF Nos. 16, 17). The Court has
carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs cross-motion to
remand is denied, Dematic's motion to dismiss is granted, and Amazon's motion to dismiss is
denied as moot.
1
Improperly pled as Dematic Corporation and Dematic USA.
I.
Background2
This matter arises from an accident that occurred at an Amazon facility located in
Avenel, New Jersey ("Avenel Facility"). (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1-2.) On December
4, 2013, Ronald Smith ("Mr. Smith"), a temporary warehouse worker, was caught in a conveyor
belt and crushed while performing sorting operations at the Avenel Facility. (Id.
ifif 17-18.)
After becoming stuck in the conveyor belt, Smith was compressed, dragged, and fell to the
concrete floor below near Plaintiff, who was working as a full-time facility technician at the
Avenel Facility when the accident occurred. (Id.
ifif 16, 19.) Thereafter, Plaintiff attempted to
resuscitate Mr. Smith before emergency personnel arrived. (Id.
if 20.) Mr. Smith later died as a
result of his injuries from the accident. (Id.) In addition, as a result of his attempt to resuscitate
Mr. Smith, Plaintiff was exposed to blood products requiring ongoing medical care and
treatment.
(Id.
if 21.) The conveyor belt at the Avenel Facility was "designed, developed,
manufactured, assembled, marketed, supplied, distributed, sold, serviced, redesigned, and/or
placed in the stream of commerce" by Dematic. (Id.
if 23.)
Following the accident, Plaintiff filed a four-count Complaint against Dematic and
Amazon in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County. (See generally
Compl.) Only Count Four, labeled "Discovery Purposes Only-Amazon," is directed at Amazon
and states that "Amazon is included in this Complaint for discovery purposes only." (Id.
if 37.)
The remaining three counts of the Complaint, which are directed at Dematic, are for: (1) strict
2
For the purpose of this motion, the Court accepts the facts alleged in the Complaint as true. See
Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating that on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, courts must "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of
the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief').
2
products liability (Count One); (2) negligence (Count Two); and (3) punitive damages (Count
Three). (Id
II.
ifif 22-35.)
Dematic removed the action to this Court.
Cross-Motion to Remand3
A.
Legal Standard
A motion to remand is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which provides that removed
cases shall be remanded, "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In this Circuit, removal statutes are
strictly construed, and remand is favored when doubt exists as to the propriety of removal. Abels
v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985). The general removal statute
permits a defendant in a state court action to remove the suit to federal district court if federal
subject matter jurisdiction existed when the complaint was initially filed.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). The burden of establishing that there is federal subject matter jurisdiction is borne by
the removing party. Boyer v. Snap-on Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990). Likewise,
when presented with an argument for remand, the removing defendant must shoulder the burden
of establishing the validity of removal and the existence of federal jurisdiction. Id
B.
Analysis
In his cross-motion to remand, Plaintiff argues that there is no diversity of citizenship
because "[c]ontrary to Dematic's factual presentation, Dematic is indisputably a citizen of the
State of New Jersey, as is ... [P]laintiff." (Pl. 's Opp'n Br. 4, ECF No. 11.) Specifically,
Plaintiff disputes that Dematic' s principal place of business is in Michigan, as Dematic alleged in
the notice of removal (Notice of Removal if 11, ECF No. 1), and instead asserts that its principal
place of business is in New Jersey (PL 's Opp'n Br. 8). To support this assertion, Plaintiff cites
3
As the motion to remand asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court shall
first address whether it has jurisdiction over this action.
3
the fact that Dematic accepted service of the Complaint at its New Jersey offices and that
Dematic's website lists its New Jersey office as the location of Dematic's "Eastern Operations."
(Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 9.) In its reply, Dematic argues that New Jersey is not its principal place of
business because "Dematic' s headquarters of day to day corporate activity and management is
located in Michigan, not New Jersey."
(Dematic Reply Br. 4, ECF No. 16.)
Specifically,
Dematic asserts that its "officers direct, control[,] and coordinate the corporation's business
activities within the United States and make[] all decisions regarding management from
Michigan." (Id) The Court agrees with Dematic.
In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, the Supreme Court:
conclude[ d] that "principal place of business" is best read as
referring to the place where a corporation's officers direct, control,
and coordinate the corporation's activities. It is the place that
Courts of Appeals have called the corporation's "nerve center."
And in practice it should normally be the place where the
corporation maintains its headquarters-provided that the
headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and
coordination ....
559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). Here, Dematic's website lists its Michigan office as its "North
America Headquarters," and provides that its "network of Regional Operations Offices ... work
in concert with [its] Corporate Headquarters." (Certification of Cynthia A. Walters, Ex. B
("Dematic Website"), ECF No. 11-2.)
The website does not refer to any other office as
Dematic's "headquarters." Moreover, Jeffrey R. Heinz, the Secretary and General Counsel of
Dematic, attested that "Dematic's officers, including but not limited to [the] Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and General Counsel, direct, control[,] and coordinate
all of the corporation's business activities within the United States" and "Dematic makes all
decisions regarding the management of the corporation" in the office located in Michigan. (Aff.
of Jeffrey R.
Heinz~
5(b), (e), ECF No. 16-2.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Dematic has
4
demonstrated that its principal place of business is in Michigan and that there is diversity of
citizenship in this action. Thus, Plaintiffs cross-motion to remand is denied.
III.
Dematic's Motion to Dismiss
A.
Legal Standard
On a Rule l 2(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts must "accept all factual allegations as true,
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under
any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips, 515
F.3d at 233. While a complaint does not need to contain detailed factual allegations to withstand
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a pleader must "provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to
relief,' [which] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545
(2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Put another way, the pleader must "set forth sufficient
information to outline the elements of his claim[ s] or to permit inferences to be drawn that these
elements exist." Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting SA Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (2d ed. 1990)).
Yet,
importantly, in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "the defendant bears the burden of showing
that no claim has been presented." Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005).
B.
Analysis
In Dematic' s motion to dismiss, it argues that: ( 1) Plaintiff has not stated a claim for
relief under New Jersey's Product Liability Act ("NJPLA") because he has not alleged that he
suffered physical harm from the conveyor belt; (2) even if Plaintiff could allege physical harm,
his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress would still fail because to recover as a
bystander, he must show that he had had a marital or intimate familial relationship with Mr.
5
Smith; and (3) Plaintiff cannot bring common law claims for negligence and strict liability based
upon the defective conveyor belt because those claims are subsumed by the NJPLA. (Dematic's
Moving Br. 5-12, ECF No. 7-1.)
1.
NJPLA Claim
In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that he has sufficiently alleged "physical harm" to state
a claim for relief under the NJPLA. (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 16-17.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that:
it is clear from the medical records, [Plaintiff] caries the diagnosis
of "post-traumatic stress disorder" along with "erectile
disorder" .... Moreover, it is clear [Plaintiff] was immediately
blood-drenched and had to undergo extensive care for exposure to
blood products including a host of injections and monitoring ....
[Plaintiff] continues to undergo psychiatric treatment for anxiety,
depression, impairment of concentration, panic attacks, nausea,
insomnia, headaches, jumpiness, irritability[,] and mood swings.
(Id.) These allegations are not, however, contained in the Complaint. As it is axiomatic that a
plaintiff may not amend his complaint through his opposition to a motion to dismiss, the Court
may not consider these allegations in determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief.
See Com. of Pa. ex rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1988) (stating
that a complaint may not be amended by briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff does not allege any specific injuries, rather he summarily
states that he "has suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including severe emotional
distress, which ... require[] medical treatment and result[] in permanent injury" and that "[a]s a
result of his participation in the resuscitation of [Mr.] Smith, [he] was caused to be exposed to
blood product requiring ongoing medical care and treatment and causing further trauma and
severe emotional distress." (Compl. ifif 20-21.) These conclusory allegations of physical harm
6
are not sufficient to state a claim for relief under the NJPLA. 4 See Batchelor v. Proctor &
Gamble Co., No. 14-2424, 2014 WL 3749160, at *3 (D.N.J. July 30, 2014) ("Plaintiffs' assertion
that Batchelor suffered 'mental anguish and emotional distress' is a conclusory statement that is
insufficient to demonstrate injury under the [NJ]PLA."); Kury v. Abbott Lab., Inc., No. 11-803,
2012 WL 124026, at *6 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2012) (finding that "conclusory and vague allegations
that [p]laintiff suffered damages, mental anguish and pain and suffering" were insufficient to
state a claim for relief under the NJPLA); see also Sinclair v. Merck & Co., Inc., 195 NJ. 51, 64
(2008) (holding that the NJPLA requires a physical injury).
2.
Strict Liability and Negligence Claims
In addition, because Plaintiffs strict liability and negligence claims arise from the alleged
defects in the conveyor belt, these claims are subsumed by the NJPLA. Plaintiffs reliance on
Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 70 F. Supp. 2d 521, 530-31 (D.N.J. 1999), Universal Underwriters
Insurance v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 103 F. Supp. 2d 744, 746-49 (D.N.J. 2000), and
Naporano Iron & Metal Co. v. American Crane Corp., 79 F. Supp. 2d 494, 506 (D.N.J. 1999), to
argue that the NJPLA "is not applicable to, and does not restrict all of [P]laintiff s claims" is
misplaced. (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 11-12.) As Dematic explained, Plaintiffs reliance on Thomas,
Universal, and Naporano is misplaced, because these cases only underscore the proposition that
a negligence claim that is based on an allegedly defective product is subsumed by the NJPLA. In
Naporano Iron & Metal Co.,5 the court dismissed the plaintiffs negligence claim, which was
4
Having found that Plaintiffs failure to sufficiently allege physical harm is fatal to his NJPLA
claim, the Court need not consider Dematic' s argument that Plaintiffs failure to allege that he
had a marital or intimate familial relationship with Mr. Smith is fatal to his NJPLA claim.
5
79 F. Supp. 2d at 506 ("[Plaintiff] did not plead its case in the alternative or articulate a theory
of 'ancillary negligent conduct' in its complaint. Rather, it has claimed throughout that the
7
based on a defective product, holding that it was subsumed by the NJPLA, and in Thomas 6 and
Universal Underwriters Ins., 7 the court permitted negligence claims that were based only on
non-defective products.
Here, Plaintiffs claims are premised on the allegedly defective
conveyor belt. Plaintiff does not assert any other theory of liability related to a non-defective
conveyor belt.
Therefore, the Court agrees with Dematic that, as alleged, Plaintiffs strict
liability and negligence claims are subsumed entirely by the NJPLA and must be dismissed.
3.
Punitive Damages
Finally, Plaintiff argues that it would be premature to dismiss his claim for punitive
damages "before the development of discovery." (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 20.) Punitive damages are not
an independent cause of action. See Cal. Natural, Inc. v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., 631 F. Supp.
465, 474 (D.N.J. 1986) (""[I]n New Jersey there is no independent cause of action for punitive
damages.") Rather pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.13(c), "[p]unitive damages may be awarded
only if compensatory damages have been awarded .... " N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.13(c). Having found
that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under the NJPLA or common law, the Court
dismisses Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages.
[c]rane and its component parts were defective. Therefore, [plaintiffs] negligence claim ... is
subsumed entirely by the [NJ]PLA, and must be dismissed.").
6
70 F. Supp. 2d at 531 (holding that plaintiff "may be entitled to relief on a claim for negligent
installation pled separately from any [NJPLA] claim since it may yet be proved that [defendant]
improperly installed otherwise well-functioning and non-defective airbag components).
7
103 F. Supp. 2d at 748-49 (holding that claims "not related to a defect in the product ... but
rather to the maintenance and oversight of [defendant's] emergency response service," were
covered by the NJPLA).
8
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Plaintiffs cross-motion to remand,
grants Dematic's motion to dismiss, and denies Amazon's motion to dismiss as moot. 8 An order
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
MICHAEL A. SHIPP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
JJ..
Dated: August 'J~ 2016
8
Plaintiff does not allege an independent cause of action against Amazon, rather he includes
Amazon in the Complaint for "Discovery Purposes Only." (Compl., Count Four.) Now having
found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief against Dematic, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs request for discovery is moot. Accordingly, the Complaint is also dismissed as to
Amazon and Amazon's motion to dismiss is moot.
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?