Covey v. System USA, LLC et al

Filing 261

ORDER & OPINION by Judge Frank H. Seay granting Defendant System USA, LLC's 238 Motion for Summary Judgment. (adw, Deputy Clerk) Modified to correct text on 7/1/2014 (adw, Deputy Clerk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANGELA COVEY,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
SYSTEM USA, LLC, a Georgia
)
limited liability company,
)
et.al.,
)
)
Defendants.)

CIV-11-390-FHS

ORDER AND OPINION
Before the court for its consideration is the Defendant
System USA, LLC’s Motion to renew Motion for Summary Judgment and
Brief in Support (Doc. 238).

In this motion, the defendant

renews its request for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims.
Defendant argues that it cannot be held liable on plaintiff’s
claims because it was not in existence during the relevant time
frame. Plaintiff alleges the System Group of companies provided
the same or similar services in the United States prior to the
formal filing of the System USA entity. Thus, since it was
providing services to customers it can be held liable. The court
rules as follows on the motion.
This product liability case arises from a hand injury
sustained by plaintiff when she was re-loading a Packaging
Machine, alleged to have been unreasonably dangerous upon the
sale, distribution, and installation at Dal-Tile.

Plaintiff has

alleged that while performing her duties and replacing large
rolls of shrink wrap on the packaging machine at issue-suddenly
and without warning-the heat welding component clamped down on
1

plaintiff’s right hand, trapping her in the machine.

Plaintiff

sustained serious injury to her right hand.
First, it should be noted that plaintiff has once again
argued this motion for summary judgment is premature and she
needs additional time to conduct discovery on the issues
presented in the motion.

Plaintiff requests this court to either

deny the motion on the merits or deny it pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56 (d). On March 4, 2014, this court denied
the defendant’s first motion for summary judgment on this same
issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (d).

In the

order it was stated that plaintiff had presented sufficient facts
that she needed additional time to conduct discovery to refute
factual issues raised in the motion. The court has given
plaintiff sufficient time to conduct additional discovery on the
precise issues being argued in this motion.

Further, the

dispositive motion deadline has now passed. The court sees no
need for additional time for discovery on these exact same
issues. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff’s request to deny
the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 (d).
The court finds the facts as follows. System USA, LLC is a
domestic Limited Liability Company and was organized under the
laws of the state of Georgia on June 28, 2006. Its principal
place of business is, and has been since 2006, Georgia.

The

installation of the subject machine was approximately November
2005. Further, the Contract for Sale was between Dal-Tile and
Defendant System S.p.A.

Plaintiff sustained her injury on August

15, 2010.
In her First Amended Complaint, plaintiff has plead a cause
2

of action for strict product liability, negligence or gross
negligence and breach of warranty.

Plaintiff alleges that

defendant System USA is in the business of designing,
manufacturing, marketing, selling, distributing, installing,
servicing, maintaining and providing parts for various
manufacturing equipment including the machine at issue in this
lawsuit. Plaintiff has produced no evidence indicating that
defendant System USA was in any way involved in the design,
manufacture or servicing of the machine at issue.

The undisputed

facts reveal that System USA was not a legally existing company
at the time of the purchase.

However, plaintiff alleges that it

was providing parts and technical services to Dal-Tile as part of
the Systems Group before it was a legal entity. As a result of
this contact, defendant System USA can be held liable. The only
support for this claim is testimony from Dal-Tile’s maintenance
manager, Berre Zemene Yayine who testified that representatives
from System USA came to the plant but he was not sure if it was
for a vendor visits or for technical assistance.

He also

testified he did order parts from System USA but did not know
whether he had ever ordered parts from defendant System USA for
that particular machine.

Plaintiff also asserts the contract for

sale of the machine was signed by Cristian Cavazzuti who is the
General Manager for System USA. However, Mr. Cavazzuti signed it
on behalf of System Spa not System USA. The court finds this
insufficient factual evidence to assert liability against this
defendant for the injury in question.

Plaintiff simply has

insufficient evidence to establish that defendant System USA was
connected to this particular machine in any way. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 (c)(1) provides:
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the
3

record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made
for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not
establish the absence or presence of a genuine
dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.
Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of defendant System USA’s
possible connection to this machine do not create an issue of
fact and are simply insufficient to overcome a motion for summary
judgment.

Harvey Barnett, Inc. v. Shidler, 338 F.3d 1125, 1136

(10th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, defendant’s System USA’s Motion

for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of July, 2014.

4