ALLEY v. MTD PRODUCTS, INC et al

Filing 135

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Delay Damages (ECF No. 122 ) and Defendants MTD Products, Inc., MTD Consumer Group, Inc., MTD Holdings, Inc., MTD LLC, and MTD Products Ltd's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF No. 125 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the jury verdict rendered on July 31, 2019 is hereby molded to reflect the add ition of delay damages in the sum of $12,947.74, for a total award of $183,480.48, and the judgment is hereby altered to reflect the molded jury verdict, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 10/17/2019. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
REYNOLDS ALLEY,

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-3

)

Plaintiff,

)

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

)

v.

)
)

MTD PRODUCTS, INC., et. al.,

)
)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I.

Introduction
Before the Court are Plaintiff Reynolds Alley's Petition for Delay Damages (ECF No. 122)

and Defendants MID Products, Inc., MID Consumer Group, Inc., MID Holdings, Inc., MID
LLC, and MTD Products Ltd's (collectively, "MID") Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter
of Law (ECF No. 125). The motions are fully briefed (ECF Nos. 124, 126, 129, 133, 134) and ripe
for disposition. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Delay
Damages and DENY MID's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.
II.

Jurisdiction and Venue
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. While

Plaintiff failed to affirmatively assert that venue is proper, MID failed to object and accordingly
waived the objection. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(l)(B).

III.

Factual and Procedural Background1

The case arises from injuries that Plaintiff sustained while handling a snow thrower
manufactured by MID. (ECF No. 11 'Il 9.) Plaintiff alleges that, on or about January 19, 2015,
when he was seating the bead of a tire onto the snow thrower rim and/or inflating the tire, the
rim failed and burst, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe injuries. (Id. 'Il'Il 10-11.)
The Court accepted as true the facts in the following two paragraphs for the purpose of
deciding the Motion for Summary Judgment, and accepts them as true again for purposes of
ruling on MID' s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law:
1. Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident. (ECF No. 33 'Il 1.) Plaintiff purchased the snow
thrower in Pennsylvania (Id. at 'Il 6) and only ever used it in Pennsylvania. (Id. 'Il 7.) Plaintiff's
injury occurred in Pennsylvania. (Id. 'Il 8.)
2. MID has manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution facilities in four states and
several foreign countries. (ECF No. 28 'Il 13.) MID is incorporated in Delaware and has its
principal place of business in Ohio. (Id. 'Il 5.) The snow thrower that injured Plaintiff was
engineered, designed, manufactured, and tested by Defendant MID in its Valley City, Ohio plant.
(Id. 'Il'Il 6-11.) MID produced the snow thrower in question on September 8, 2004, and shortly

thereafter sold it to Lowe's, a national retailer, FOB MID's manufacturing facility in Ontario,
Canada. (Id. 'Il 12.) Upon receiving the snow thrower, Lowe's shipped it to its distribution center
located in Minersville, Pennsylvania, in September 2004. (Id.)

1

The Court recounts the facts as taken from its earlier opinion on MTD's Motion for Summary Judgment. (See ECF
No. 47.)
2

A. The Litigation History
Plaintiff filed his Complaint before this Court on January 10, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff
subsequently amended his Complaint on February 2, 2017. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff asserts two
claims against MID: (1) strict products liability (Count I) and (2) negligence (Count II). (Id. at 38.) MID filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on April 4, 2017 (ECF No. 26.), which this Court
denied on December 20, 2017. (See ECF No. 47.)
The parties did not conduct fact discovery while MID' s Motion for Summary Judgment
was pending, and told the Court that there were still several depositions that the parties needed
to take. (ECF No. 46.) In its Pretrial Order of January 8, 2018, the Court initially scheduled trial
for May, 2018. (ECF No. 49.) On February 1, 2018, the parties filed joint motions to amend the
Initial Scheduling Order and the Pretrial Order, requesting trial be moved until September 2018,
or later. (See ECF Nos. 50, 51.) The Court granted the motions and set trial for September 4, 2018
(ECF No. 53.)
On May 4, 2018, MID moved for a protective order in relation to one of Plaintiff's

discovery requests. (ECF Nos. 57, 58.) In response, on May 14, 2018, Plaintiff requested an
amendment to the scheduling order; which this Court granted on May 15, 2018, and extended
discovery past the September, 2018 trial date. (See ECF Nos. 59, 60, 61.) This Court granted MID's
request for a protective order on September 28, 2018. (ECF No. 74.) At a status conference
conducted on November 1, 2018, this Court proposed a trial date of May, 2019, and the parties
consented to scheduling trial at that time. (ECF No. 75.)
On December 6, 2019, the Court issued an amendment to the scheduling order, setting
January 31, 2019 as the close of fact discovery, February 15, 2019, as Plaintiff's expert disclosure
3

deadline, and March 10, 2019, as MTD's expert disclosure deadline. (ECF No. 77.) On March 8,
2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time, informing the Court that: (1) "by agreement of the
parties," Plaintiff's deposition had occurred on March 5, 2019, after the date set for close of fact
discovery; (2) Plaintiff underwent surgery on March 6, 2019, had not yet received his medical
records by the date set, and intended to call the surgeon who operated on him as an expert witness
at trial. (ECF No. 81.) Accordingly, Plaintiff requested an updated scheduling order, which
necessitated a new trial date of July 29, 2019. (ECF Nos. 81, 83.)
On February 25, 2019, the parties stipulated that they would not contest liability, and only
contest damages. (ECF No. 80.) The case was tried solely on damages before a jury, beginning
on July 29, 2019, and ending with a jury verdict of $170,532.74, docketed on July 31, 2019. (ECF
Nos. 112, 120.) On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Delay Damages, and MID filed
its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a matter of Law on August 27, 2019. (ECF Nos. 122, 125.)

B. The Discovery Dispute
On May 23, 2017, Plaintiff served MID with a notice of corporate depositions, and

requesting dates for the depositions of MID's corporate designees. (ECF No. 59-1.) Apparently,
MID was unable to schedule a date for the depositions until January 25, 2018. (ECF No. 129 at
6.) After receiving a date for the depositions, Plaintiff amended the notice of deposition to reflect
the date, March 14, 2018. (ECF No. 59-2.) On March 13, 2018, the day before the depositions were
scheduled to occur, MID objected to more than half of the topics Plaintiffs stated in the notice
and stated that MID would not provide testimony on those topics. (ECF No. 59-3.) In light of
the eleventh-hour objections, the parties cancelled the depositions. (ECF No. 59-4.)

4

IV.

Legal Standard
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238(c) provides that a plaintiff may obtain an

addition to the damages awarded in the verdict based upon the time required to file the suit and
to litigate the action; effectively, this is interest on the amount of the judgment. Pa. R. Civ. P 238;

see Arthur v. Kuchar, 682 A.2d 1250, 1253 (Pa. 1996). Delay damages are awarded from a period
starting one year after the original service of process in the action, but cannot be awarded for any
delays in trial which the Plaintiff caused. PA. R. Civ. P. 238(a). The Court calculates the delay
damages at a rate one percentage point higher than the prime rate listed in the Wall Street Journal
in its first issue of the calendar year, not compounded. Id.
The explanatory comment to Rule 238 states that the defendant bears the burden of proof
in resisting a motion for delay damages. Id., explanatory cmt.; see City of Pittsburgh v. Jodzis, 607
A.2d 339 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992). Only delays caused by the plaintiff's fault are excluded from
calculation of an award of delay damages-those caused by neither party are included in the
Court's calculation. See Schrock v. Albert Einstein Medical Ctr., Daroff Div., 589 A.2d 1103, 1106 (Pa.
1991). Further, not every delay is relevant to the issue of delay damages, but only "such
occurrences as actually cause delay of the trial." Pa. R. Civ. P. 238, explanatory cmt.
Rule 238 is substantive law that this Court is required to follow in diversity actions. Fauber

v. KEM Transp. & Equip. Co., 876 F.2d 327,328 (3d Cir. 1989).

5

V.

Analysis
A. The Parties' Arguments
The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of delay damages, but they

do disagree on the amount. (See ECF No. 124 at 4.) The parties also agree that the applicable
interest rate for any delay incurred in 2018 is 5.50%, resulting in a daily interest rate of $25.70.
The parties first dispute the correct day upon which the delay damages clock begins to
run. MID alleges that Plaintiff effected service on January 31, 2017. Plaintiff argues that service
was effected on January 30, 2017, the date on which MID's counsel entered their appearances in
this matter and filed a motion to dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.)
MID contends that Plaintiffs made inappropriate discovery requests and failed to adhere
to the Court's discovery deadlines, which derailed the trial schedule. (ECF No. 124 at 3.) As a
result of these alleged delays, MTD argues that Plaintiff is only entitled to delay damages for the
period between January 31, 2018 and September 4, 2018. (Id.)
Plaintiff argues that it made no such inappropriate discovery requests, did not add topics
to its notice of deposition, MID had the notice of deposition for 295 days and only lodged its
objection the day before the depositions, and that if MID believed that Plaintiff's discovery
requests were inappropriate, MID should have objected sooner.
With regards to MID's argument that Plaintiff is not entitled to delay damages for the
final delay, from May 20, 2019 to July 9, 2019, because of Plaintiff's failure to disclose his expert,
Plaintiff has conceded that he is not entitled to delay damages for that period of time. (ECF No.
129 at 8-9.)

6

B. The Court Will Grant Plaintiff's Petition for Delay Damages
The Court must resolve two issues: (1) on what day did the clock for delay damages begin
to run; and (2) whether MID has met its burden to prove that Plaintiff caused the delays.
The Court holds that the proper day to begin awarding delay damages is January 30, 2018.
MID asserts that Plaintiff did not effect service upon it until January 31, 2017, but has provided
no evidence in support of this contention, other than its own bare assertion that this is the case.
The docket entries further bely MID's contention: MID's counsel entered their appearances on
January 30, 2017, and filed a Motion to Dismiss the same day. (See ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.) It is
unreasonable to believe that MID could prepare and file a Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support
of that Motion a day before it was served with the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court will award
delay damages beginning January 30, 2018. 2
Regarding the second issue, the Court holds that MID has not presented sufficient
evidence to carry its burden to show that the delays were Plaintiff's fault. With regards to the
discovery dispute, the Court did grant MID's Motion for a Protective Order, holding the
Plaintiffs discovery requests "improperly [sought] 'discovery on discovery," and were
disproportionate to the needs of the case. (ECF No. 74.) However, MID was in possession of
that request for 295 days before it objected to the requests on March 13, 2018, and MID then took
an additional two months before filing for the protective order on May 14, 2018. (See ECF No.
60.) MID should have objected earlier, or provided evidence as to why it failed to do so. Further,
while the Court ultimately ruled against Plaintiff, MID has not shown that those requests were

2

One year from the original date of service in the action. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 238.
7

made in bad faith, or in an attempt to delay trial. In sum, MTD has not shown that the delay
caused by the discovery requests was Plaintiff's fault.
Accordingly, because MTD has not shown that the delays in trial were Plaintiff's fault, the
Court will grant Plaintiff's request for delay damages in the amount of $12,947.74, based on 336
days of interest in 2018 at a rate of $25.70 per day and 142 days of interest in 2019 at a rate of
$30.37 per day.
C. The Court Will Deny MTD's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

MTD moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law during trial on July 29, 2019. (ECF No. 109.)
The Court denied that motion for the reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion denying
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47). MTD renewed its motion on the same
grounds on August 27, 2019. (ECF No. 125.) For the reasons stated in that Order, which is
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, the Court will deny Defendants'
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and allow judgment to be entered on the
verdict.
VI.

Conclusion
Because Plaintiff is entitled to delay damages, the Court grants his request and orders that

the verdict be molded to reflect the addition of delay damages. MTD is not entitled to judgment
as a matter of law, and the Court denies MTD's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law.
An appropriate order follows.

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
REYNOLDS ALLEY,

Case No. 3:17-cv-3
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

Plaintiff,
v.
MTD PRODUCTS, INC., et. al.,
Defendants.

th
AND NOW, this \ /

MEMORANDUM ORDER

day of October, 2019, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for

Delay Damages (ECF No. 122) and Defendants MID Products, Inc., MID Consumer Group,
Inc., MID Holdings, Inc., MID LLC, and MID Products Ltd's Renewed Motion for Judgment
as a Matter of Law (ECF No. 125), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is
GRANTED and Defendants' Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the jury

verdict rendered on July 31, 2019 is hereby molded to reflect the addition of delay damages in
the sum of $12,947.74, for a total award of $183,480.48, and the judgment is hereby altered to
reflect the molded jury verdict.
BY THE COURT:

KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9