Gray v. Derderian
| Decision Date | 18 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | Civ.A. No. 04-312L.,Civ.A. No. 03-483L. |
| Citation | 365 F.Supp.2d 218 |
| Parties | Albert L. GRAY, Administrator, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jeffrey DERDERIAN, et al., Defendants. Estate of Jude B. Henault, et al., Plaintiffs, v. American Foam Corporation; et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Patrick T. Jones, Cooley Manion Jones LLP, Boston, MA, Max Wistow, Wistow & Barylick Incorporated, Mark S. Mandell, Mandell, Schwartz & Boisclair, Stephen E. Breggia, Breggia, Bowen & Grande, Eva Marie Mancuso, Hamel, Waxler, Allen & Collins, Steven A. Minicucci, Charles N. Redihan, Jr., Kiernan, Plunkett & Redihan, James J. Gannon, Green, Greenberg & Nesselbush, Providence, RI, Michael A. St. Pierre, Revens, Revens & St. Pierre, Warwick, RI, for Plaintiffs.
Donald M. Gregory, III, North Kingstown, RI, Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Randall L. Souza, Ian C. Ridlon, Nixon Peabody LLP, Donald J. Maroney, James H. Reilly, III, Kelly, Kelleher, Reilly & Simpson, Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Kristin E. Rodgers, Howard A. Merten, Vetter & White, Incorporated, Marc Desisto, Richard W. MacAdams, MacAdams & Wieck, Inc., Ronald P. Langlois, Smith & Brink, P.C., Mark T. Nugent, Morrison Mahoney LLP, Thomas C. Angelone, Hodosh, Spinella & Angelone, Thomas W. Lyons, III, Strauss, Factor & Lopes, C. Russell Bengtson, Carroll, Kelly & Murphy, Providence, RI, Curtis R. Diedrich, Sloane & Walsh, Boston, MA, Donald M. Gregory, III, North Kingstown, RI, James T. Murphy, Hanson Curran LLP, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 20, 2003, a deadly fire destroyed a nightclub in West Warwick, Rhode Island, known as The Station. The fire started as the featured rock band, Great White, began its live performance and the club was crowded with spectators, staff and performers. The opening featured pyrotechnic devices, or stage fireworks, ignited by the band's tour manager1, as the band2 took the stage.
According to eyewitnesses, the fireworks created sparks behind the stage which ignited polyurethane foam insulation on the club's ceiling and walls. In minutes, the entire building was on fire and a reported over 400 people3 were struggling to escape the crowded, dark and smoky space. The final toll: One hundred people dead and over 200 injured.
Numerous lawsuits, both criminal and civil, were filed throughout southern New England in both state and federal courts. Last year, in Passa v. Derderian, 308 F.Supp.2d 43 (D.R.I.2004), this Court asserted jurisdiction over several of the cases that had been removed to this Court from Rhode Island Superior Court. This Court's exercise of original federal jurisdiction was based upon the Multiparty, Multiforum, Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 1369. Since that time, to the best of this Court's knowledge, all civil lawsuits resulting from the nightclub fire have been consolidated in this Court, pursuant to a First Amended Master Complaint (hereinafter "the Complaint") filed and adopted jointly by over 200 plaintiffs, against over 50 defendants. Although this Court's jurisdiction is based on federal law, Rhode Island will provide the substantive law for these cases. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Ticketmaster-New York v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 204 (1st Cir.1994); Passa v. Derderian, 308 F.Supp.2d 43 (D.R.I.2004). As of this writing, discovery has been stayed to permit an adequate time for service of, and response to, the new complaint.
Presently before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), brought by bulk polyurethane foam manufacturers, and their corporate affiliates. Leggett & Platt, Inc. is a Missouri corporation, doing business as Crest-Hood Foam Company, Inc., and Crest Foam. Its affiliate, L & P Financial Services Co., is a Delaware corporation, which, according to the Complaint, sold the foam which injured the Plaintiffs, "in conjunction with defendant Leggett & Platt."
The other set of defendants include General Foam Corporation, a Delaware-incorporated manufacturer; GFC Foam, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Foamex LP, a successor entity to General Foam Corporation; Foamex International Inc., 100% owner of Foamex LP; FMNXI, Inc., managing general partner of Foamex LP; PMC, Inc., parent company of General Foam Corporation; and PMC Global, Inc., 100% owner of PMC, Inc.
More than one foam manufacturer sold foam to American Foam Corporation, a local distributor. Because little to no discovery has taken place to date, Plaintiffs have been unable to identify which manufacturer produced the foam that was present at The Station. Both the Leggett & Platt Defendants and the General Foam Defendants (together, "the Foam Defendants," or "Defendants") allegedly manufactured polyurethane foam insulation and sold it to American Foam Corporation4 in Johnston, Rhode Island. According to the Complaint, American Foam Corporation cut the bulk foam into an egg-crate design and then sold it, through its salesman5, to The Station's landlords6 who installed it around the stage as soundproofing. All Foam Defendants, either through their direct manufacturing operations or via the corporate ownership chain, are charged with negligence in the design, manufacture, testing, inspecting, marketing, sale and distribution of the foam, strict liability for the manufacture and distribution of an unreasonably dangerous product, and breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness in the manufacture, sale and distribution of the foam product. These allegations are found in Counts 51 through 67 of the Complaint, on pages 107 through 131, paragraphs 507 through 634. Defendants move this Court to dismiss all allegations against them. For reasons explained at length below, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are denied.
Defendants move to dismiss claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b) states that as to subpart (6), if "matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." In connection with the present Motions to Dismiss, parties from both sides have presented additional material to the Court with their various memoranda. However, because discovery has been and remains stayed in this litigation, neither side has had an opportunity to develop a complete record in support of their allegations or defenses. Consequently, the Court has chosen to exclude all extraneous information and affidavits, as well as all arguments in reliance thereon, in ruling on the present Motions to Dismiss. Following extensive discovery, this Court will no doubt be presented with many summary judgment motions, pursuant to Rule 56, and the Court will have an opportunity to visit and revisit these legal issues at that time, with a fully developed factual record at its disposal.
At present, the Court adheres to the narrow and limited focus appropriate to a Motion to Dismiss, analyzing only the well-pleaded Complaint for allegations necessary to support the claims. In the course of its analysis, the Court will assume that all allegations are true. The allegations and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them will be construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). As stated by the United States Supreme Court, "the accepted rule [is] that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Defendants' Motions will fail if "the well-pleaded facts, taken as true, justify recovery on any supportable legal theory." Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14, 21 (1st Cir.2000).
At the present point in the litigation, as reflected by the First Amended Master Complaint, almost 250 Plaintiffs have sued over fifty Defendants in an eighty-one count Complaint. The Foam Defendants are charged with negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty, in Counts 51 through 67 of the Complaint. Only the allegations in these counts will be addressed in this opinion.
In the counts alleging negligence, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants were negligent in the design, manufacture and distribution of the foam sold to American Foam Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants owed a duty of care to all purchasers and ultimate users and recipients of the foam, including the patrons at The Station, and that they breached that duty by failing to use due care in the manufacture, sale and distribution of the foam; failing to undertake reasonable research on the effects of the product; failing to adequately test the product; failing to warn and educate foam users about its hazards; failing to provide adequate protection for persons coming into contact with the product; and failing to use due care in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling, provision, distribution and sale of the product.
In connection with the strict liability counts, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable under the doctrine of strict products liability for the damages caused by the foam. In these counts, Plaintiffs allege that the foam was defective and unreasonably dangerous as designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold. Specifically, the foam insulation was extraordinarily dangerous and flammable — it ignited too easily, burned too vigorously...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Derderian
...Since that time, this Court has ruled on several motions to dismiss. Those decisions may be found under the caption Gray v. Derderian at 365 F.Supp.2d 218 (D.R.I.2005), 371 F.Supp.2d 98 (D.R.I. 2005), 389 F.Supp.2d 308 (D.R.I.2005), 400 F.Supp.2d 415 (D.R.I.2005), 404 F.Supp.2d 418 (D.R.I.2......
-
Gray v. Derderian
...chosen to exclude all extraneous [material], as well as all arguments in reliance thereon," in ruling on this Motion to Dismiss. Gray, 365 F.Supp.2d at 223. See also Rodi v. S. New England Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 12 (1st Cir.2004) (asserting that a district court must actually have conside......
-
Gray v. Derderian
...Court has addressed two other motions to dismiss, which may be found under this same caption at 371 F.Supp.2d 98 (D.R.I.2005) and 365 F.Supp.2d 218 (D.R.I.2005). Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), brought by Clear Chann......
-
Williams v. Johnson & Johnson
...breached that duty; 3) the breach proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries; and 4) actual loss or damages resulted." Gray v. Derderian , 365 F. Supp. 2d 218, 226 (D.R.I. 2005) (citing Splendorio v. Bilray Demolition Co. , 682 A.2d 461, 466 (R.I. 1996) ). "In a negligent design claim, ‘one ca......