St Johns United Methodist Church v. Delta Electronics, Inc. et al
Filing
127
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION DENYING 104 MOTION to Dismiss 77 Third Party Complaint, or in the Alternative, MOTION to Abate and GRANTING 121 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Third-Party Complaint.(Signed by Judge Gregg Costa) Parties notified.(dwilkerson, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
ST JOHNS UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH,
Plaintiff,
VS.
DELTA ELECTRONICS, INC., et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-11-57
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case arises from a 2009 fire at St. Johns United Methodist Church. St.
Johns filed suit against Defendants Delta Electronics, Inc. and Belkin International,
Inc., alleging that the fire was caused by an uninterruptible power source (“UPS”)
that Delta designed and manufactured and Belkin branded and sold. Defendants
later filed a third-party complaint against Matt and Bryce Raines. Defendants
contend that the fire was caused by nine-year-old Bryce, who was six at the time of
the fire. Defendants further allege that Bryce’s father Matt was negligent in
supervising Bryce during the time leading up to the fire.
Matt and Bryce Raines filed their 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Motion to Abate. They allege that the capacity in which Bryce was
sued is contrary to Texas law and that Defendants have failed to plead sufficient
factual detail concerning Bryce’s liability. In the alternative, they request that the
1/5
Court abate this portion of the proceedings until Bryce reaches age eighteen. For
the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
I.
DISCUSSION
A.
Minors as Named Defendants
Under Texas law, minors may be properly joined as defendants through their
next friend. Am. Gen. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Vandewater, 907 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex.
1995) (per curiam) (citing Orange Grove Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rivera, 679 S.W.2d
482, 483 (Tex. 1984)). When a minor is named as defendant, the court’s personal
jurisdiction over the minor depends on “whether the minor’s interests have been
properly protected and whether a deficiency in notice or due process has been
shown.” Id. (citations omitted).
But Defendants’ Original Third-Party Complaint did not sue Bryce through
a next friend; it sued him directly. At a status hearing, the Court voiced doubts
about the propriety of directly suing a minor given the apparent paucity of such
lawsuits in Texas courts and at least one intermediate appellate court’s statement
that “a minor is not sui juris; generally he may not sue or be sued except as the
rules of procedure provide.” Vandewater v. Am. Gen. Fire & Cas. Co., 890
S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994), rev’d on other grounds by
Vandewater, 907 S.W.2d 491.
2/5
To insure that Bryce’s interests are adequately protected and that there is no
deficiency in notice or due process, Defendants have agreed to replead their
complaint, naming as third-party defendants Matt Raines in his individual capacity
and as next friend of Bryce Raines, a minor. Such amendment will cure any defect
in the capacity in which Bryce was sued and also moots the motion to abate. See
Molano v. State, 262 S.W.3d 554, 558 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.)
(“A motion to abate is used to challenge the plaintiff’s pleadings by which the
defendant identifies a defect and asks the trial court to keep the suit from going
forward until plaintiff corrects the defect.”). Defendants have already filed their
motion for leave to file a first amended petition reflecting this change.
B.
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
The Federal Rules require that a claim for relief contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). To survive a motion to dismiss, a claim for relief must be “plausible on
its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Facial plausibility
exists “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A
“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” or naked assertions
3/5
devoid of “further factual enhancement” will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, 557 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Matt and Bryce Raines allege that Defendants have failed to plead sufficient
facts in that they do not allege specific actions or omissions on the part of Bryce
that may have caused the fire. Defendants assert, and this Court agrees, that the
Federal Rules do not require such specificity. The Defendants have sufficiently
supported their claim for indemnification and contribution against Bryce Raines by
alleging that he was near the location where Defendants allege the fire began—the
church’s prayer room—directly before the fire began. See Original Third-Party
Compl. 2–3, ECF No. 77. Defendants need not plead the precise manner in which
Bryce allegedly started the fire, especially in light of the difficulty of anyone other
than Bryce having that information. Cf. Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.,
288 F. App’x 597, 605 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a Twombly challenge because
“[t]he very nature of a products liability action—where the cause or source of the
defect is not obvious to the consumer—would make it difficult for an appellant to
pinpoint a specific source of defect against one entity along the chain of
distribution”).
4/5
II.
CONCLUSION
Matt and Bryce Raines’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
Motion to Abate (ECF No. 104) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to
File First-Amended Third-Party Complaint (ECF No. 121) is GRANTED.
SIGNED this 7th day of August, 2012.
___________________________________
Gregg Costa
United States District Judge
5/5
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?