Silver Eagle Refining v. Professional Service Industries, Inc. et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 11/19/13 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
SILVER EAGLE REFINING, INC.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff,
v.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES,
INC.; SUN SHIPBUILDING AND DRY
Case No. 1:12-cv-00233 DN
DOCK COMPANY; SUN OIL COMPANY;
MOOSE’S CONSTRUCTION; AND DOES 1- District Judge David Nuffer
5,
Defendant.
In response to the complaint filed by Silver Eagle Refining, Inc. (“Silver Eagle”) the
defendants, Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (“Sun Ship”) and Sunoco, Inc., (R&M)
f/k/a Sun Oil Company (“Sun Oil”), filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 1 This order grants
in part and denies in part the defendants’ motion.
Background
Plaintiff Silver Eagle seeks to recover damages stemming from an explosion which
occurred on November 4, 2009, at Silver Eagle’s refinery in Woods Cross, Utah. The explosion
took place in the refinery’s Mobile Distilling Dewatering Unit (“MDDW Unit”). Silver Eagle
attributed the explosion to a defective pipe segment that was allegedly improperly manufactured
and installed. 2 On November 2, 2012, Silver Eagle brought multiple claims against various
defendants. 3
1
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendants Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Sunoco,
Inc. (R&M) f/k/a Sun Oil Company (Motion to Dismiss), docket no. 10, filed March 8, 2013.
2
Complaint and Jury Demand (Complaint), ¶¶ 12-16 at 3, docket no. 1, filed November 2, 2012.
3
Id. ¶¶ 20-98 at 3-13.
Silver Eagle’s Claims against Sun Ship.
Silver Eagle’s complaint alleges negligence and a claim of strict liability against Sun
Ship. In those claims Silver Eagle alleges that Sun Ship, the manufacturer of the pressure vessel
(including the pipe segment) in the MDDW Unit, both designed and manufactured a defective
and unreasonably dangerous product, 4 and breached “a duty of reasonable care in manufacturing
the MDDW Unit.” 5 Silver Eagle further alleges that these actions by Sun Ship were “the direct
and proximate cause of the explosion.” 6
Silver Eagle’s Claims against Sun Oil.
Silver Eagle also brought two causes of action against Sun Oil, one for negligence and
another for breach of contract and breach of implied warranties. Silver Eagle alleges that Sun
Oil, which initially purchased the MDDW Unit from Sun Ship and then sold it to Silver Eagle,
made repairs and alterations to the MDDW Unit, 7 and breached its duty to use reasonable care
when making those repairs and alterations to the unit. 8 Silver Eagle further alleges Sun Oil owed
a duty to accurately represent the condition of the MDDW Unit prior to sale and it breached this
duty by making false representations to Silver Eagle about the fitness of the unit. 9 Finally, Silver
Eagle alleges it contracted with Sun Oil for the sale and purchase of the MDDW Unit, and Sun
Oil breached that contract and implied warranties by delivering an unfit and dangerous unit. 10
4
Id. ¶ 51 at 7.
5
Id. ¶ 49 at 7.
6
Id. ¶ 53 at 7.
7
Id. ¶ 58 at 8.
8
Id. ¶¶ 59-66 at 8-9.
9
Id.
10
Id. ¶¶ 68-76 at 9-10.
2
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
In response to these claims Sun Ship and Sun Oil filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 11 The defendants argue that the claims against them should be dismissed because they
are barred by Utah’s two-year statute of limitations and because they were inadequately plead. 12
In reference to the statute of limitations, the defendants point out that under the Utah
Product Liability Act 13 (“UPLA”):
A civil action under this part shall be brought within two years from the time the
individual who would be the claimant in the action discovered, or in the exercise
of due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause. 14
Defendants insist that this statute bars all claims against them because Silver Eagle’s claims all
fall under the UPLA products liability umbrella and this suit was filed more than two years after
the explosion.15
Additionally, the defendants further argue that Silver Eagle’s claims lack factual content
and are based on legal conclusions. 16 The defendants claim that Silver Eagle’s claims are
therefore improperly plead and implausible, and that the claims should be dismissed under the
Iqbal/Twombly standards. 17
11
See Motion to Dismiss.
12
Id. at 8-13.
13
Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-6-701 to -707.
14
Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-706.
15
Motion to Dismiss at 9-10.
16
Id. at 10-13.
17
Id. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
3
Analysis
When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
the court must “accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff.” 18
Products Liability Claim Against Sun Ship
If Silver Eagle’s claims against Sun Ship fall under the UPLA they are subject to the two
year statute of limitations and time barred.
The Utah Supreme Court explained what constitutes a “civil action” under the UPLA:
Although our statute does not define a product liability action, product liability
encompasses all actions seeking money damages for injury to people or property
resulting from defective products. An action for damages resulting from a
defective product can be based on claims of negligence, strict liability, tortious
misrepresentation, and breach of warranty. 19
Under this standard, the UPLA applies to Silver Eagle’s claims against Sun Ship, because all the
claims against Sun Ship are based on Sun Ship’s allegedly defective manufacturing of the pipe
segment.
Because all of Silver Eagle’s claims against Sun Ship fall under the UPLA they are
therefore time-barred. Silver Eagle correctly points out that the UPLA’s statute of limitations
only runs from when the harm is “discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have
discovered, both the harm and its cause” 20 and that “[w]hether a plaintiff has exercised due
diligence, under all the circumstances of the case, is a question of fact.” 21 Silver Eagle is also
18
Jordan-Arapahoe, LLP v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 633 F.3d 1022, 1025 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Beedle v. Wilson,
422 F.3d 1059, 1063 (10th Cir.2005) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).
19
Utah Local Gov’t Trust v. Wheeler Mach. Co., 199 P.3d 949, 951 (Utah 2008) (internal citation omitted).
20
Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-706.
21
Bridgewaters v. Toro Co., 819 F. Supp. 1002, 1008 (D. Utah 1993).
4
correct that the applicability of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. 22 But “[w]hile
the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, when the dates given in the complaint make
clear that the right sued upon has been extinguished, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing a
factual basis for tolling the statute.” 23 Silver Eagle asserts its complaint should be evaluated as if
the statute was tolled or that the court should assume that the harm was discovered or should
have been discovered no earlier than a year after the explosion happened. No factual basis has
been offered to support these assumptions. The claim against Sun Ship is time-barred. Silver
Eagle had the burden to plead a factual scenario where the claims should not be time-barred,
which it did not do.
Negligence/Contract Claims against Sun Oil
The UPLA does not apply to Silver Eagle’s claims against Sun Oil because these claims
encompass more than merely improper manufacturing. Silver Eagle alleges Sun Oil negligently
altered already manufactured pipe segments and made false representations to Silver Eagle
breaching its contract and implied warranties.
Even though the UPLA and its two year statute of limitations do not apply, the adequacy
of Silver Eagle’s pleading must still be decided. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 24 In order to survive a
22
Memorandum Opposing the Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Defendants Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Company and Sunoco, Inc. (R&R) f/k/a/ Sun Oil Company (Opposition) at 3, docket no. 16, filed April 5, 2013.
23
Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 n. 4 (10th Cir.1980) (“Statute of limitations questions
may, therefore, be appropriately resolved on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motion.”).
24
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted).
5
12(b)(6) motion, Silver Eagle must “nudge[] [its] claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible . . . .” 25
Silver Eagle’s claims against Sun Oil are definitely not saturated with detailed factual
allegations, but the Supreme Court has also said that a plaintiff is not required to present detailed
factual allegations, but the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 26
Ignoring the many legal conclusions in Silver Eagle’s complaint, there are enough facts
to justify a denial of Sun Oil’s motion to dismiss. These alleged facts, to be viewed in the light
most favorable to Silver Eagle, include, but are not limited to: an explosion occurred on
November 4, 2009, that explosion was caused by a failed pipe section of the MDDW Unit; the
pipe section was sold to Silver Eagle by Sun Oil; the pipe section was altered by Sun Oil; Sun
Oil made misrepresentations to Silver Eagle concerning the pipe segment; Sun Oil failed to
disclose pertinent information to Silver Eagle concerning the pipe segment; and the pipe segment
was too thin to be used in the MDDW unit. 27 These factual allegations are enough to qualify the
negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty claims as properly plead.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART:
1.
The Third Cause of Action of negligence and strict liability against Sun Ship are
dismissed and the motion is GRANTED in that respect;
25
Id. at 570.
26
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678(internal quotations omitted).
27
Complaint ¶¶ 56-76 at 8-10.
6
2.
The motion to dismiss Silver Eagle’s negligence, breach of contract and breach of
implied warranty claims against Sun Oil is DENIED.
Signed November 19, 2013.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
District Judge David Nuffer
7
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?