Baldonado v. Avrinmeritor, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13-833-SLR-CJB |
| Parties | MICHAEL BALDONADO and VIRGINIA BALDONADO, Plaintiffs, v. AVRINMERITOR, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Plaintiffs Michael Baldonado and Virginia Baldonado ("Plaintiffs") filed this action against a multitude of defendants (collectively, "Defendants") for injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos. (D.I. 1, ex. 1) Presently pending before the Court are Defendant PACCAR Inc.'s ("PACCAR") Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims of Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (D.I. 10); and Defendant Daimler Trucks North America, LLC's ("Daimler") Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims of Plaintiffs' Complaint, also filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), (D.I. 18) (). For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that the Motions to Dismiss be GRANTED in the manner further set out below.
A. Factual Background
Plaintiffs Michael and Virginia Baldonado are a married couple residing in the State of New Mexico. (D.I. 1, ex. 1 at ¶¶ 1-2, 75) Plaintiffs describe Mr. Baldonado's history of exposure to asbestos as follows:
Plaintiffs name 34 companies as Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-36) According to the Complaint, "at all times pertinent," these Defendants were:
[D]irectly or indirectly engaged in the mining, manufacturing, distribution, sales, licensing, leasing, installation, removal and/or use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. They were also engaged in the development, manufacture, distribution, sales, licensing or leasing of equipment procedures and/or technology necessary to mine, manufacture, sell, distribute, install, remove and [] use [] asbestos and asbestos-containing products.
(Id. at ¶ 45) As for Defendants' role in Mr. Baldonado's exposure to asbestos, Plaintiffs allege simply that Mr. Baldonado "was exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products whichwere mixed, mined, manufactured, distributed, sold, removed, installed and/or used by [] Defendants[,]" (id. at ¶ 39), and that "[a]s a result of [] Defendants' wrongful conduct, [he] developed . . . [l]ung [c]ancer[] and other asbestos-related injuries and diseases[,]" (id. at ¶ 41).
The counts in the Complaint contain no headings, and in the body of each Count, Plaintiffs nowhere flatly state what type of legal claim each Count is supposed to represent. This makes it difficult at times to ascertain the specific cause of action that Plaintiffs intend to put forward in each Count. But the Counts all appear to be state common law claims relating to Mr. Baldonado's alleged asbestos exposure (such as claims for negligence, intentional misrepresentation, product liability, civil conspiracy and loss of consortium). (Id. at ¶¶ 37-76)
8. Procedural Background
This action was originally commenced in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware on December 20, 2012. (D.I. 1, ex. 1) On May 10, 2013, the action was removed to this Court by Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation based on federal officer jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). (D.I. 1)
On May 14 and May 16, 2013, respectively, PACCAR and Daimler filed their Motions to Dismiss. (D.I. 10, 18) The Motions were fully briefed on June 6, 2013. (D.I. 43, 44).
This case was referred to the Court by Judge Sue L. Robinson on May 29, 2013, to conduct all proceedings and hear and determine all motions, through and including the pre-trial conference. (D.I. 32)
The sufficiency of pleadings for non-fraud claims is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader isentitled to relief[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A claim of fraud, however, is subject to the more stringent pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which mandates that the "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake" be "state[d] with particularity[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 200 (3d Cir. 2007).
When presented with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court conducts a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the court separates the factual and legal elements of a claim, accepting "all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but [disregarding] any legal conclusions." Id. at 210-11; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ( ) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Second, the court determines "whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a 'plausible claim for relief.'" Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). In assessing the plausibility of a claim, the court must '"construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.'" Id. at 210 (quoting Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)).
The Motions to Dismiss1 allege that Plaintiffs have insufficiently pleaded claims ofwillful and wanton conduct (Count IV), intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation (Counts VI and VII, respectively) and civil conspiracy (Counts VIII and IX), and that Plaintiffs' claim of breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Count V at ¶ 57)2 is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (D.I. 11)
As noted above, this action was removed to this Court based on federal officer jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). A federal court's role under federal officer jurisdiction is "similar to that of a federal court sitting in diversity." Introcaso v. Meehan, Civil Action No. 07-3726, 2008 WL 161213, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2008). Thus, this Court must "apply the choice of law rule of the forum state to determine the law applicable to this action, as it would in a diversity action." Gallelli v. Prof'l Ins. Mgmt., Civ. A. No. 92-5812, 1994 WL 45729, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 1994). In tort actions such as this, Delaware has adopted the '"most significant relationship'" test for choice of law. ACCU Pers., Inc. v. AccuStaff, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 1191, 1212 (D. Del. 1994) (quoting Travelers Indem. Co. v. Lake, 594 A.2d 38, 47 (Del. 1991)). "That is, the state law which 'has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties' will govern." Id. (quoting Travelers Indem. Co., 594 A.2d at 47). Here, there is no dispute that, pursuant to this test, New Mexico law applies. (See D.I. 1, ex. 1 at ¶ 40; D.I. 11 at 5)
Once a case is removed to the United States district courts, however, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the pleading requirements for a plaintiff's complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P.81(c); Frederico v. Home Depot, No. Civ.A. 05-5579(JAP), 2006 WL 624901, at *2 n.4 (D.N.J. Mar. 10, 2006) (), aff'd, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Lin v. Chase Card Servs., Civil Action No. 09-5938 (JAP), 2010 WL 1265185, at *2 n.2 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2010) (). Therefore, contrary to Plaintiffs' argument, (see D.I. 35 at 2), the Federal Rules, and not the Delaware Superior Court's guidelines for asbestos actions, now govern the adequacy of the Complaint's allegations. See Hicks v. Boeing Co., Civil Action No. 13-393-SLR-SRF, 2014 WL 1284904, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2014) ().
With these principles in mind, the Court will consider the challenged claims in turn.
Under New Mexico law, willful and wanton conduct—the...
To continue reading
Request your trial