RICHETTA et al v. STANLEY FASTENING SYSTEMS, L.P.

Filing 85

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION IS DENIED. MORE SPECIFICALLY, DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS STRICT LIABILITY (COUNT 2) AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (COUNT 4) CLAIMS IS DENIED. AS PLAINTIFFS HAVE WITHDRAWN THEIR NEGLIGENCE (COUNT 1) AND BREACH OF WARRANTY (COUNT 3) CLAIMS, THESE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 8/21/09. 8/25/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(la, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BRUCE RICHETTA, et al. Plaintiffs vs. STANLEY FASTENING SYSTEMS, L.P. : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 07-cv-3814

Defendant

ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2009, upon consideration of Defendant Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's opposition thereto (Doc. No. 60), Defendant's Reply Brief (Doc. No. 79), and Plaintiff's Sur-Reply Brief (Doc. No. 80), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 45) is DENIED. More specifically, Defendant's request for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's strict liability (Count 2) and loss of consortium (Count 4) claims is DENIED. As Plaintiffs have withdrawn their negligence (Count 1) and breach of warranty (Count 3) claims, these claims are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon consideration of Defendant Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages, Plaintiffs' opposition thereto (Doc. No. 36), Defendant's Reply Brief (Doc. No. 40), and Plaintiffs' Sur-reply Brief (Doc. No. 41), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages in their strict liability cause of action (Count 2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon consideration of Defendant Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P.'s Motion in Limine for Bifurcation on the Issue of Punitive Damages, Plaintiffs' opposition thereto (Doc. No. 62), Defendant's Reply Brief (Doc. No. 73), and Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply Brief (Doc. No. 76), it

is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file, within thirty (30) days of the date of this
O rd e r, joint proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, or special interrogatories to the jury consistent w i th the Court's conclusion that Sections 1 and 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts apply to Plaintiffs'

strict liability cause of action. Each party shall also file proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, or special interrogatories on those issues not agreed upon by the parties in their joint submission. If a model jury instruction is submitted, for instance, from Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (5th edition) or Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions (2nd edition), counsel shall state whether the proposed jury instruction is modified. If counsel modifies the jury instruction, additions shall be underlined and deletions shall be placed in brackets. Jury instructions shall be submitted each on a separate sheet of paper, double-spaced, with accurate quotes from and citations to cases and pattern jury instructions where appropriate. The parties shall also provide to the Court the proposed jury instructions on a computer diskette in WordPerfect for Windows format, version 9.0 or above. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas M. Golden THOMAS M. GOLDEN, J.

-2-