Afoa v. China Airlines Ltd et al

Filing 125

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 121 Defendant TLD America's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Judge John C Coughenour.(MD)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BRANDON APELA AFOA,

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12

CASE NO. C11-0028-JCC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART TLD
AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS

CHINA AIRLINES LTD, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant TLD America’s motion to dismiss

15

16 some of Plaintiff’s claims against it (Dkt. No. 121). Having thoroughly considered the parties’
17 briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS in PART and DENIES in PART the
18 motion for the reasons explained herein.
19 I.

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff provided ground services at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. (Dkt. No. 119

21 at ¶¶ 4.5, 4.9.) Plaintiff alleges that he was severely injured when the brakes and steering failed
22 on the small industrial truck he was driving and it collided with a machine used to load cargo on
23 and off airplanes (―cargo loader‖). (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶¶ 9.10–12.) Plaintiff alleges that the cargo
24 loader ―malfunctioned‖ and collapsed on him, injuring him. (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶ 9.12.)
25

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant TLD America (―TLD‖) designed, manufactured,

26 marketed, distributed, or provided product support for the cargo loader. (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶¶ 8.4–
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART TLD AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 1

1 8.8.) He alleges that TLD ―expressly warranted‖ that the cargo loader ―was of good
2 workmanship and is free from mechanical defects, and designed with safety as the most
3 important consideration.‖ (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶ 17.15.) He also alleges that TLD ―implied that the
4 cargo loader was safe and able to withstand low speed impacts without collapsing and causing
5 injury, and represented that it was crashworthy and safe for the particular purpose of airport
6 operations.‖ (Id.)
The Court granted in part and denied in party TLD’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

7

8 Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 116.) The Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claim for
9 failure to warn under the Washington Product Liability Act (―WPLA‖). (Dkt. No. 116 at 4.) The
10 Court denied TLD’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s design defect claims under the WPLA. (Dkt.
11 No. 116 at 5–6.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims with leave to amend.
12 (Dkt. No. 116 at 6.)
13 II.

DISCUSSION

14

A.

15

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain ―a short and

Pleading Standard and Leave to Amend

16 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.‖ A party may move to
17 dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P.
18 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
19 accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
20 662, 677–78 (2009). The court does not accept legal conclusions as true, so ―[t]hreadbare recitals
21 of the elements of a cause of action‖ are not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. A claim
22 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
23 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 678. A claim
24 that fails to present a ―cognizable legal theory‖ or sufficient facts to support a cognizable claim
25 will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116,
26 1121 (9th Cir. 2008).
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART TLD AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 2

The court should ―freely give‖ leave to amend ―when justice so requires.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

2 15(a)(2). The court weighs five factors in deciding whether to grant leave to amend—―bad faith,
3 undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the amendment, and whether the plaintiff
4 has previously amended the complaint.‖ United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995
5 (9th Cir. 2011). ―Dismissal without leave to amend‖ on the basis of futility ―is appropriate only
6 when the Court is satisfied that an amendment could not cure the deficiency.‖ Harris v. Cnty. of
7 Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff’s Washington Product Liability Act Claims

8

B.

9

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint improperly re-asserts his claim for failure to warn,

10 which the Court previously dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶ 17.6–17.7.) The Court
11 assumes this was the result of an oversight by Plaintiff’s counsel. In any case, Plaintiff’s failure
12 to warn claim was dismissed with prejudice (see Dkt. No. 116 at 4) and need not be addressed
13 further.
14

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint alleges that TLD failed to protect him from

15 ―foreseeable misuse of the cargo loader‖ (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶ 17.13) and that the cargo loader
16 failed to comply with government requirements relating to ―design or warnings‖ (Dkt. No. 119 at
17 ¶ 17.10.) Although Plaintiff’s argument is not entirely clear, the Court reads his response to
18 TLD’s motion to argue that the two challenged allegations are not freestanding claims but rather
19 support his design defect claim, which the Court previously ruled was adequately pled. The
20 Court agrees that the two challenged allegations are not freestanding claims but rather describe
21 alternative theories that may support Plaintiff’s design defect claim. Accordingly, the Court
22 DENIES TLD’s request to dismiss those allegations. To the extent that the second allegation
23 (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶ 17.10) is intended to support Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim, it is of no effect.
24
25

1. Express or Implied Warranties
Plaintiff alleges that TLD violated the WPLA because the cargo loader ―did not conform

26 to express or implied warranties.‖ (Dkt. No. 26 at ¶ 15.9.) Contractual privity between the parties
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART TLD AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 3

1 is required to establish a claim for breach of implied warranty. Thongchoom v. Graco Children’s
2 Prods. Inc., 71 P.3d 214, 219 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). ―[F]or there to be recovery on a breach of
3 an implied warranty, the plaintiff must have purchased something.‖ Id. Plaintiff has never
4 alleged that he purchased the cargo loader. Moreover, it is not plausible that Plaintiff did so. The
5 cargo loader is a large piece of industrial machinery that obviously was not purchased by an
6 individual ground services employee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for breach of implied
7 warranties is DISMISSED with prejudice.
8

Under Washington law, a manufacturer is subject to strict liability if the claimant’s harm

9 was proximately caused by the fact that a product was not reasonably safe because ―it did not
10 conform to the manufacturer’s express warranty . . . .‖ Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(2). ―A
11 product does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer if it is made part of the
12 basis of the bargain and relates to a material fact or facts concerning the product and the express
13 warranty is proved to be untrue.‖ Id. § 7.72.030(2)(b). Generally, privity is also required before a
14 plaintiff may maintain a cause of action for breach of express warranty, but the requirement ―is
15 relaxed if the manufacturer makes express representations in advertising, or in some other form,
16 to the plaintiff.‖ Thongchoom, 71 P.3d at 219. ―Recovery for breach of an express warranty is
17 contingent on a plaintiff’s knowledge of the representation.‖ Id. (quoting Touchet Valley Grain
18 Growers, Inc. v. Opp & Seibold Gen. Contr., Inc., 831 P.2d 724, 731 (1992)). Moreover, a
19 plaintiff must show that he relied on the express warranty. Reece v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 953
20 P.2d 117, 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
21

As did his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint fails to

22 state the express warranties on which his claim is based. (See Dkt. No. 116 at 6.) Plaintiff’s Third
23 Amended Complaint contains the new allegation that TLD ―expressly warranted that equipment
24 manufactured and sold by them, including the cargo loader, was of good workmanship and is
25 free from mechanical defects, and designed with safety as the most important consideration.‖
26 (Dkt. No. 119 at ¶ 17.15.) This factual allegation is insufficient to survive dismissal because it
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART TLD AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 4

1 does not quote any specific representation, describe where or when the representation was made,
2 or describe how Plaintiff knew of such representation or relied thereon. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
3 claim for breach of express warranty is DISMISSED.
4

Plaintiff asserts that he can cure any deficiencies in his express warranty claim. The

5 Court grants Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend this claim. Any proposed amendment must be
6 filed within twenty (20) days of the date of this order and must quote specific representations by
7 TLD, describe where and when they were made, and explain how Plaintiff knew about them and
8 relied thereon. The Court will, sua sponte, dismiss with prejudice any amendment that fails to
9 address these deficiencies.
10 III.

CONCLUSION

11

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant TLD’s motion to dismiss claims in Plaintiff’s Third

12 Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 121) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
13

DATED this 3rd day of July 2013.

14
15
16

A

17
18
19

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART TLD AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 5