Matos v. Nextran, Inc.
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71041, 52 V.I. 676 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint states a plausible claim for relief if it contains sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, to support each essential element of a cause of action. Pleading a remedy, such as punitive damages, as a standalone cause of action is improper and subject to dismissal.
Facts:
- Eduardo Matos was operating a concrete truck for his employer in an area known as Mahogany Run on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
- The truck, which was allegedly manufactured and sold by Nextran, Inc. and Mack Truck Sales of South Florida, rolled over.
- As a result of the rollover, Eduardo Matos suffered serious physical injuries.
- Nextran had sold the truck to Matos's employer knowing it was intended to be used for transporting, mixing, and pouring concrete.
- The plaintiffs allege the truck was defectively designed and manufactured, specifically citing defects in the chassis, frames, installation of the concrete barrel, and the brakes.
- Santa Matos, Eduardo Matos's wife, claims loss of consortium due to her husband's injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Eduardo Matos and Santa Matos sued Nextran, Inc. and Mack Truck Sales of South Florida in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged six counts: negligence, breach of warranty of fitness, strict liability, breach of warranty of merchantability, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
- Defendant Nextran first filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2), which the court denied.
- Nextran then filed a renewed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, to strike allegations under FRCP 12(f) or for a more definite statement under FRCP 12(e).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint that alleges a truck was defectively designed and manufactured, causing a rollover accident and injuring the driver, state plausible claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranties sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6)?
Opinions:
Majority - Gómez, Chief Judge
Yes. A complaint that alleges a manufacturer's duty, a breach of that duty through a specific defect, causation, and damages states plausible claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranties. The court found that the plaintiffs' complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to sustain their claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. For negligence, the complaint sufficiently alleged a duty, breach, causation, and damages. For strict liability, it alleged an unreasonably dangerous defect that caused the injury. For implied warranties, it alleged the defendants knew the truck's purpose and that it was unfit for that purpose. However, the court dismissed the breach of express warranty claim (with leave to amend) because it failed to allege the warranty was part of the 'basis of the bargain.' The court also dismissed the punitive damages count because punitive damages is a remedy, not a standalone cause of action. The court denied the defendant's motions to strike and for a more definite statement, finding the complaint provided adequate notice and was not unduly prejudicial or vague.
Analysis:
This case serves as a practical application of the Twombly pleading standard to common products liability claims. It illustrates how courts analyze each cause of action independently, requiring plaintiffs to plead facts supporting every element of a claim to survive a motion to dismiss. The decision underscores the distinction between a cause of action and a remedy, a crucial concept for litigators, by dismissing the standalone punitive damages claim. Furthermore, it reinforces the high threshold for granting motions to strike under Rule 12(f) and motions for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), affirming that pleadings need only provide fair notice, not be perfectly drafted.
