Queen v. Hunter's Manufacturing Company, Inc.

Filing 28

Memorandum Opinion and Order: The amended motion to alter or amend judgment filed by plaintiff Larry W. Faust, Jr. (Doc. No. 22 ) is denied. Judge Sara Lioi on 5/24/2017. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WALTER J. QUEEN, et al.,
PLAINTIFFS,
vs.
HUNTER’S MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC.,
DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:16-cv-2262
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Before the Court is the amended motion to alter or amend the judgment timely1 filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) by dismissed plaintiff Larry W. Faust, Jr. (Doc. No. 22 [“Mot.”].)
Defendant has filed its opposition. (Doc. No. 26 [“Opp’n”].)
Rule 59(e) motions may be granted if there is “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.”
Crouch v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 720 F.3d 333, 345 (6th Cir 2013) (citations omitted). Faust
bases his motion solely upon prevention of manifest injustice, arguing that his claim, if dismissed,
is now barred by the statute of limitations.
On April 14, 2017, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the Court dropped several plaintiffs from
this products liability lawsuit and dismissed their claims without prejudice, concluding that they
did not meet the requirements for permissive joinder in Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1). (See Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 13.) Faust now seeks an order of the Court severing his claim, rather
than dismissing it without prejudice, and allowing him to proceed in the Court independently. He
argues that, if dismissed, his claim would now be time-barred under Ohio’s two-year statute of
Rule 59(e) provides that a motion must be filed “no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Faust’s
original motion was filed on May 12, 2017, and was subsequently amended. Defendant does not challenge its
timeliness.
1

limitations because “the dismissal order was entered more than two years after [his] injury.” (Mot.
at 220.)
As properly pointed out by defendant in its opposition brief, Faust is a Michigan resident
(Compl. [Doc. No. 7] ¶ 3) who was purportedly injured in Michigan on October 9, 2014 (id. ¶ 32)
by a cross-bow manufactured by defendant, which is a Nevada corporation with its principal place
of business in Ohio. (Id. ¶ 6.) Faust was treated for his injuries in Michigan. (See Doc. No. 12-1 at
166.) Michigan’s statute of limitations for personal injury and product liability is three years, not
two, as in Ohio. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10), (13). Defendant argues that Faust “has
until October 9, 2017, to timely file his claims for personal injury in a Michigan court.” (Opp’n at
235.) Therefore, dismissal of Faust’s claim will not render it time-barred, as Faust can pursue his
claim, if he chooses, in a Michigan state court.
Furthermore, although defendant is amenable to suit in Ohio on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Faust could meet the jurisdictional
requirement of $75,000. His medical bills are noted to be $1,032.00. (Doc. No. 12-1 at 166.)
Accordingly, Faust’s amended motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. No. 22) is
denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2