Williams et al v. Tristar Products, Inc. et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re re 45 SEALED MOTION, 42 SEALED MOTION Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 10/10/17. (DJP)

FILED
OCT 1 0 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
*****************************************************************************

DIANE WILLIAMS and EARL

*

*

WILLIAMS

CIV 16-4018

*

Plaintiffs,

*
*
*

vs.
*
*

TRISTAR PRODUCTS,INC. and
QVC,INC.

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
TO SUBMIT PUNITIVE DAMAGES

CLAIMS TO THE JURY,DOCS.42 & 45

*
*

Defendants.

*
*

******************************************************************************

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions to Submit Punitive Damages Claims to
the Jury, Docs. 42 & 45. In their complaint. Plaintiffs allege a myriad of claims stemming from
Defendants' design, manufacture, distribution, and sale of a mat intended to be used on the floor
of a shower or bath tub—an "AquaRug." Plaintiffs now contend Defendants' conduct showed
reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' rights and justifies an award of punitive damages.

Shortly after the motions to submit punitive damages claims were filed, the parties hegan
to discuss a settlement of the case and agreed that the punitive damages issue did not need to he

resolved immediately. After finding "little likelihood of settlement. Plaintiffs filed a letter with
the court requesting a due date for Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs motions, a due date for
Plaintiffs' replies to Defendants' responses, and a hearing date "as required by South Dakota
law.

S.D.C.L. § 21-1-4.1 provides:

In any claim alleging punitive or exemplary damages, before any discovery
relating thereto may he commenced and before any such claim may be submitted
to the finder of fact, the court shall find, after a hearing and based upon clear and
convincing evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that there has been
willful, wanton or malicious conduct on the part ofthe party claimed against.

This rule serves two purposes: 1) preventing discovery on punitive or exemplary damages claims

and 2) preventing submission to the finder of fact without holding a hearing on the punitive or