Leonard et al v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Filing 114

ORDER denying 103 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 3/15/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-00284-F
WILLIAM LEONARD and KAREN
LEONARD,
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)

v.

)

ORDER

)

BED, BATH & BEYOND, INC.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,

)
)
)

v.

)
)

NAPA HOME & GARDEN, INC., et al.
Third-Party Defendants

)
)

1bis matter is before the court on Third-Party Defendant Essential Ingredients, Inc.'s Motion
to Reconsider [DE-l 03]. For the reasons that follow, the instant motion is DENIED.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL IDSTORY

Plaintiffs William and Karen Leonard (''the Leonards") filed a Complaint in the underlying
personal injury action against Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. ("BBB") on April 11, 2014, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. 1 Compl. [DE-l]. The Leonards' Complaint
asserts claims of Negligence, Strict Products Liability, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of
Implied Warranties of Merchantability, Negligent Infliction· of Emotional Distress, and Loss of
Consortium. Each of the Leonards' causes of action arise out of injuries sustained by Mr. Leonard
when he was burned while attempting to use FireGel Citronella Eco-Gel Fuel ("FireGel") purchased
from BBB. See id
1

The action was later transferred to this district. See Order of May 22, 2015 [DE-47].

On January 12, 2015, BBB filed its Third-Party Complaint [DE-24] against a number of
Third-Party Defendants, including Essential Ingredients, Inc., seeking compensation for claims
sounding in Negligence, Breach of Implied Warranty, Product Liability, Indemnification, and
Contribution. On December 30, 2015, the court dismissed BBB's Negligence, Breach of Implied
Warranty, and Product Liability claims against Essential Ingredients. See Order of Dec. 30,2015 [DEl 02]. Essential Ingredients now moves for reconsideration of that Order.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, motions for reconsideration are allowed only at the discretion of the court and
only under certain circumstances. See Ga.-Pac. Consumer Prods. v. Von Drehle Corp., 815 F.
Supp. 2d 927, 929 (E.D.N.C. 2011). Those circumstances are typically (1) to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or (2) to consider newly discovered evidence. See id Motions to reconsider
"are improper if they serve merely to ask the Court 'to rethink what the Court had already
thought through-rightly or wrongly."' See id (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Typically, affirmative defenses will not be resolved by a ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss, which tests only the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494
F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007). In the "relatively rare circumstance[]," however, where "all facts
necessary to the affirmative defense 'clearly appear[] on the face of the complaint,"' the court
may reach the defense at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. Id (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg &

Potomac R.R. v. Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (second alteration and emphasis in
original)).

2

III.

DISCUSSION

Essential Ingredients correctly points out that the court failed to discuss whether North
Carolina's "sealed container" defense shields the company from liability. Accordingly, Essential
Ingredients asks the court to reconsider its Order of December 30, 2015 with regard to that issue
alone. The court, however, finds· Essential Ingredients' arguments on this matter premature at the
12(b)(6) stage.
In North Carolina, a "seller'' cannot be held liable in a products liability action, other than an
action for breach of express warranty, when the product was acquired and sold by him (1) "in a
sealed container," or (2) "under circumstances in which the seller was afforded no reasonable
opportunity to inspect the product in such a manner that would have or should have, in the
exercise of reasonable care, revealed the existence of the condition complained of, unless the
seller damaged or mishandled the product while in his possession." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-2(a).
A "seller includes a retailer, wholesaler, or distributor, and means any individual or entity
engaged in the business of selling a product, whether such sale is for resale or for use or
consumption." Id § 99B-1(4). A manufacturer, on the other hand, "means a person or entity who
designs, assembles, fabricates, produces, constructs or otherwise prepares a product or
component part of a product prior to its sale to a user or consumer." Id § 99B-1 (2).
Essential

Ingredi~nts

argues that it is a mere distributor of Klucel, an ingredient in the

FireGel that allegedly injured the Plaintiffs. As a distributor, Essential Ingredients claims that it
"received packaged/sealed drums of the component ingredient and merely sold the same to the .
manufacturers of the FireGel for use in their proprietary product." Mot. Dismiss Mem. [DE-82]
at 16. Therefore, Essential Ingredients argues, it falls squarely within the ambit of§ 99B-2's

3

sealed container defense. In contrast, BBB alleges Essential Ingredients participated in the design
and manufacture ofFireGei. Third-Party Compl. [DE-24] ~ 168.
Whether the sealed container defense applies in this case will depend on the precise nature of
Essential Ingredients' role in producing and manufacturing FireGel. Clearly, the parties disagree on
that point, so a factual determination must be made. At the 12(b)(6) stage, however, the court does not
'
decide factual disputes, but tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Because the sealed container
defense's applicability is not clearly apparent from the face of the complaint, Essential Ingredients
cannot prevail on its affirmative defense at this point in the litigation.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Third-Party Defendant Essential Ingredients, Inc.'s Motion to
Reconsider [DE-103] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
This the __rfday ofMarch, 2016.

4