Wells v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. et al
Filing
25
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/3/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LINDA WELLS, as next friend and mother of
O. G. W., L. K. W. and G. S. W., Minor
Children of and Heirs at Law of
JAMES F. WALL, II, deceased.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. and MULTIQUIP,
INC.,
Defendants
.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
NO: 3:2013-cv-00194
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
TRAUGER/BROWN
______________________________________________________________________________
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1
______________________________________________________________________________
A.
JURISDICTION
The parties agree that subject matter jurisdiction exists under diversity of citizenship, 28
U.S.C. § 1332. The parties also agree that this Court has personal jurisdiction over both
Defendants.
B.
PARTIES’ THEORIES OF THE CASE
1.
Plaintiff’s Theory of the Case
This case arises out of the death of James F. Wall, II on September 18, 2011 from carbon
monoxide poisoning. The source of the carbon monoxide was a portable generator rented from
Defendant Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (“Sunbelt”) and manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant
Multiquip Inc. (“Multiquip”). Even though a warning decal affixed to the generator stated that
“To avoid injury, you MUST read and understand owner’s manual before using machine” no
owner’s, operator’s or other manual was furnished by Sunbelt with the generator when the
generator was rented. Moreover, no instructions were given by or on behalf of Sunbelt on the
safe use of the generator. The generator was not properly maintained. The generator was
defective and unreasonably dangerous, and the warning decals affixed to the generator did not
adequately warn of the dangers associated with using the generator or adequately instruct
foreseeable users on how to use the generator safely.
As a result of James Wall’s death, plaintiffs have sustained damages. Among those
damages is the loss of consortium experienced by O. G. W., L. K. W. and G. S. W., a daughter
and two sons, as a result of their father’s death.
2.
Defendants’ Theory of the Case
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., denies that any act or omission of Sunbelt constitutes fault which
caused or contributed to cause the accident and injuries alleged by plaintiffs. Sunbelt alleges that
if the plaintiffs’ allegations that the generator was defective or unreasonably dangerous, by
design or manufacture, including, but not limited to labeling, are proven true, then that may
constitute sole fault or comparative fault as to Denyo, and/or Multiquip, in mitigation or bar of
any recovery against Sunbelt. Sunbelt alleges that if the plaintiff’s allegations as to a not working
carbon monoxide detector in the camper trailer are proven true, then that may constitute sole
fault or comparative fault as to Gear-to-Go (the United States of America) in mitigation or bar of
any recovery against Sunbelt. Sunbelt alleges sole fault or comparative fault as to those using,
placing, or renting the camper trailer, and/or the generator.
Sunbelt pleads the applicable
provisions of the rental agreement for the generator in mitigation or bar of the claims against it.
Finally, Sunbelt denies that the plaintiff has stated a claim against it for punitive damages.
Multiquip, Inc.
Plaintiff’s wrongful death claims arise out of the deaths of the occupants of a recreational
camper trailer who died as a result of carbon monoxide toxicity. The occupants were sharing a
camper trailer that had been rented from Gear-to-Go, an agency of the United States. Plaintiff
alleges that the camper trailer did not have a functioning carbon monoxide detector at the time of
the incident. The occupants were also using a gasoline powered generator in close proximity to
an open hatch or compartment on the camper trailer, contrary to the labeling and warnings
affixed to the generator. The generator had been rented from Sunbelt. Sunbelt had previously
purchased the generator from Multiquip. Multiquip sold, but did not manufacture, the subject
generator.
As more fully set for the in Multiquip’s answers, Multiquip denies Plaintiff’s claims
against Multiquip, and denies that it is otherwise liable to the Plaintiff. Multiquip asserts the acts
or omissions of others over whom Multiquip had no control caused or contributed to cause
plaintiff’s alleged damages, including but not limited to the acts or omissions of said parties
relating to the use of the generator in close proximity to the camper trailer and the inoperable
carbon monoxide detector, which bars or reduces Plaintiffs’s claims, and the fault of said parties
should be compared under applicable Tennessee law.
C.
TARGET TRIAL DATE AND EXPECTED LENGTH OF TRIAL
The parties agree that at this time it is too early to project a trial date. Plaintiff plans to
file a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) in
connection with the absence of a functioning carbon monoxide alarm/detector in the camper/RV
occupied by James Wall at the time of his death. Plaintiff expects to request that the FTCA
lawsuit be consolidated with this case.
Further, Plaintiff may add Denyo Co., Ltd. as a
Defendant in this case since Sunbelt has identified Denyo Co., Ltd. as a non-party whose actions
may constitute fault.
D.
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES RESOLVED/DISPUTED
1.
Issues Resolved
The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and
over the parties.
The parties further agree that venue lies with this Court and that both
Defendants have been properly served with process. The parties also agree that James Wall died
as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning.
2.
Issues in Dispute
All other issues, including liability, causation and the extent of Plaintiff’s damages, are in
dispute.
E.
COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS, THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS
The parties do not anticipate the filing of any Counterclaims, Cross-Claims or Third-
Party Claims.
F.
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
The parties anticipate that both Defendants will file dispositive motions. The parties
agree that a deadline for filing dispositive motions should not be set at this time. Briefs shall not
exceed 20 pages. No motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed except upon leave of
Court. Any party wishing to file such a motion shall first file a separate motion that gives the
justification for filing a partial summary judgment motion in terms of the overall economy of
time and expense for the parties, counsel and the Court.
G.
DISCOVERY
Discovery is not stayed during dispositive motions, unless ordered by the Court. Local
Rule 33.01(b) is expanded to allow 40 interrogatories, including sub-parts.
No motions
concerning discovery are to be filed until after the parties have conferred in good faith and,
unable to resolve their differences, have scheduled and participated in a conference telephone
call with the Court.
H.
MANDATORY INITIAL DISCLOSURES
In light of the posture of this case, including the potential addition of defendants, the
parties agree that the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (1) should be made
within 14 days of a subsequent Case Management Conference, to be set by the Court on or after
August 2, 2013.
I.
STAY OF DISCOVERY
In light of the posture of this case, as described above, the parties agree that discovery
should be stayed until a second Case Management Conference, to be set by the Court on or after
August 2, 2013.
J.
OTHER DEADLINES
The parties agree that no other deadlines should be set at this time.
K.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
While this may be an appropriate case for alternative dispute resolution, any mediation or
other ADR should not be scheduled until any additional parties are before the Court.
L.
ADDITIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
The parties agree that a further Case Management Conference should be scheduled on or
after August 2, 2013.
M.
OTHER MATTERS
The parties agree that no other matters need to be addressed by the Court at this time.
May
-----Entered this 3rd day of April, 2013.
____
______________________________
Judge Aleta Trauger
APPROVED FOR ENTRY:
MINK & DUKE, PLLC
/s/Thomas F. Mink, II________________
Thomas F. Mink, II, BPR # 006067
Charles M. Duke, BPR # 23607
P.O. Box 198742
219 Second Avenue, North, Suite 400
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-8742
(615) 256-0138
(615) 730-5997 Fax
tmink@minkdukelaw.com
mduke@minkdukelaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
s/ Alan B. Easterly by TFM w/ permission
Alan B. Easterly (TNBPR#005398)
Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan PLLC
801 Broad Street, Third Floor
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2621
Phone: (423) 265-0214
Fax: (423) 308-0905
alan.easterly@leitnerfirm.com
James P. Catalano (TNBPR#018585)
Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan PLLC
414 Union Street, Suite 1900
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 255-7722
Fax :
(615) 780-2210
Email: jim.catalano@leitnerfirm.com
Rebecca E. Bell (TXBPR#24026795)
Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo LLP
Three Galleria Tower
13155 Noel Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75240
(972) 934-9100 – Phone
(972) 934-9200 – Fax
Email: rbell@feesmith.com
Attorneys for Sunbelt Rentals
s/ Randy P. Scheer by TFM w/ permission
Randy P. Scheer (MOBPR#37214)
S. Jacob Sappington (MOBPR#51810)
Kenneth A. Sprenger (MOBPR#57738)
Sanders, Warren & Russell LLP
1949 E. Sunshine, Corporate Ctr. 2-102
Springfield, MO 65840
(417) 281-5100 –Phone
(417) 281-5199 – Fax
Email: r.scheer@swrllp.com
j.sappington@swrllp.com
k.sprenger@swrllp.com
Michael K. Alston (TNBPR#013697)
Husch Blackwell LLP
736 Georgia Avenue, Suite 300
Chattanooga, TN 37402
(423) 755-2651 – Phone
(423) 266-5499 – Fax
michael.alston@huschblackwell.com
Attorneys for Multiquip
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?