Siegel v. Blue Giant Equipment, LLC

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern - Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 14 days ; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (vah, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TIMOTHY I. SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE GIANT EQUIPMENT, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-143-TCK-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Brief in
Support (Doc. 10). Defendant Blue Giant Equipment, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Petition pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule
12(b)(6)”).
I.

Plaintiff’s Allegations1
On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff alleges he sustained severe injuries while using the “Blue Giant

Loading Dock,” one of Defendant’s products. Plaintiff contends his injuries “were a result of the
defective and unreasonably dangerous design of the loading dock” and that Defendant acted with
reckless regard “in the manufacture and design of the loading dock.” (Doc. 2-1 at 2.)
II.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading to contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In considering a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon

1

Plaintiff Timothy I. Siegel (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing a petition in
the District Court of Rogers County, Oklahoma on February 26, 2015. Defendant subsequently
removed the case to this Court.

which relief may be granted. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“[T]he mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of
the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this
plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.” Ridge at Red
Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original).
The Tenth Circuit has interpreted “plausibility,” the term used by the Supreme Court in
Twombly, to “refer to the scope of the allegations in a complaint” rather than to mean “likely to be
true.” Robbins v. Okla. ex rel. Okla. Dep’t of Human Servs., 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008).
Thus, “if [allegations] are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it
innocent, then the plaintiffs have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “The allegations must be enough that, if assumed to
be true, the plaintiff plausibly (not just speculatively) has a claim for relief.” Id. “This requirement
of plausibility serves not only to weed out claims that do not (in the absence of additional
allegations) have a reasonable prospect of success, but also to inform the defendants of the actual
grounds of the claim against them.” Id. at 1248.
III.

Discussion
Defendant contends Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a plausible claim for manufacturer’s

products liability because it contains insufficient factual information and relies primarily on
conclusory allegations. Under Oklahoma law, a plaintiff must plead and prove three elements to
prevail on a manufacturer’s products liability claim: (1) the product was the cause of the injury; (2)

2

the defect existed in the product at the time the product left the manufacturer’s possession and
control; and (3) the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s
property. Clark v. Mazda Motor Corp., 68 P.3d 207, 209 (Okla. 2003). Aside from those related
to jurisdiction, the allegations cited above in Part I are the only allegations Plaintiff offers to support
his products liability claim. Plaintiff has not indicated where or how Defendant’s product was being
used, how the product was defective, how the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, or
how the defect caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
Plaintiff’s Petition is devoid of any factual allegations establishing the plausibility of his
entitlement to relief. Instead, Plaintiff relies on conclusory allegations (e.g., that the product had
a “defective and unreasonably dangerous design” and that “Defendant acted in reckless disregard”).
However, such conclusory allegations must be disregarded by the Court in determining the
plausibility of Plaintiff’s claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Shells v. X-Spine Sys., Inc., No.
CIV-14-1223, 2015 WL 736981, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2015) (dismissing petition alleging only
that unspecified product was defective in unspecified manner); Polando v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
No. CIV-13-0038, 2013 WL 791232, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 4, 2013) (dismissing claim where
plaintiff alleged only that defendant manufactured the product and that it “failed to properly sustain
the arc of electricity . . . causing her burns”); Hammons v. Boston Scientific, Inc., No. CIV-11-0663,
2011 WL 4978369, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 19, 2011) (dismissing amended complaint where plaintiff
failed to plead how the specific product failed or caused injury to the plaintiff).

3

IV.

Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and Plaintiff’s Petition is dismissed pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 14 days from the date of this Opinion
and Order.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2015.

4