King, et al v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing America, et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 20 of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, GRANTING in part & DENYING in part defts' MTD 14 ... (see Paras 2a-b for specifics), granting pltfs leave to amend pleading w/in 21 days of date of this order, setting forth instructions re: content & filing of amended pleading, & REMANDING matter to Magistrate Judge Mehalchik for further pretrial management. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/5/19. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHELLE A. KING, et al.,

:
:
Plaintiffs
:
:
v.
:
:
HYUNDAI MOTOR
:
MANUFACTURING AMERICA, et al., :
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-450
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2019, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 20) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending that the court
grant in part and deny in part defendants’ partial motion (Doc. 14) to dismiss
Counts IV, V, and VIII of the complaint filed by pro se plaintiffs Richelle A. King
and Shawn M. King (“the Kings”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and specifically that the court grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the
Kings’ claims in Counts IV and V, respectively, for breach of implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), but deny the motion to the
extent it seeks dismissal of the Kings’ claim for punitive damages in Count VIII,
and it appearing that neither the Kings nor any defendant has objected to the
report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure to timely object
to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at
the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter

of good practice, a district court should “afford some level of review to dispositive
legal issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental
Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to
“satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following independent review of the record,
the court being in agreement with Judge Mehalchick’s recommendation, and
concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 20) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED.

2.

Defendants’ partial motion (Doc. 14) to dismiss is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part as follows:
a.

The motion (Doc. 14) is GRANTED to the extent that the
Kings’ claims for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for
a particular purpose (Count IV) and violation of the UTPCPL
(Count V) are DISMISSED without prejudice.

b.

The motion (Doc. 14) is DENIED in all other respects.

3.

The Kings are granted leave to amend their pleading within twentyone (21) days of the date of this order, consistent with this order and
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s report.

4.

Any amended pleading filed pursuant to paragraph 3 shall be filed
to the same docket number as the instant action, shall be entitled
“First Amended Complaint,” and shall be complete in all respects.
It shall be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate
complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without
reference to the initial complaint. In the absence of a timely-filed
amended complaint, the above-captioned action shall proceed on
the Kings’ remaining claims as set forth in the initial complaint.

2

5.

This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for
further pretrial management.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania