Guerra v. Dematic Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:18-cv-00376-LRH-CBC |
| Parties | GUISELA AGUIRRE GUERRA, Plaintiff, v. DEMATIC CORP., a Delaware Corporation; et al., Defendants. DEMATIC CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY, LLC F/K/A SALLY BEAUTY COMPANY, INC., Third-Party Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Before the Court is Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Dematic Corp.'s (“Dematic”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 137), supported by a “Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts” (ECF No. 138). Plaintiff Guisela Aguirre Guerra (“Aguirre”) opposed Dematic's motion (ECF No. 146) and Dematic replied to the opposition (ECF No. 152). Also before the Court is Third-Party Defendant Sally Beauty Supply, LLC's (“Sally Beauty”), Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 136. Both Aguirre and Dematic opposed Sally Beauty's motion (ECF Nos. 145, 147) and Sally Beauty replied to the oppositions (ECF Nos. 154, 155). Dematic and Sally Beauty requested oral argument on their respective motions. The Court granted the requests and heard oral argument on February 9, 2023. For the reasons articulated below, the Court denies Dematic and Sally Beauty's motions.
This is a personal injury lawsuit arising out of an employee's warehouse injury. On June 11, 2018, Aguirre filed a state court complaint against Dematic alleging that it negligently caused, and is strictly liable for, an injury Aguirre sustained while working for Sally Beauty. ECF No. 1- 1 at 4-7. Specifically, Aguirre alleged that a conveyor belt lift gate (the “Gate”)-manufactured by Dematic's predecessor-injured her right arm when she lifted it in the scope of her employment. Id. at 5-6. Dematic subcontracted with third parties to install the Gate at Sally Beauty's warehouse. ECF No.146-17 at 4. On August 8 2018, Dematic removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and 1441(a). See generally, ECF No. 1. After, Aguirre filed an amended complaint in which she alleges strict product liability because Dematic defectively designed the Gate, failed to warn of the Gate's possible risks, and failed to provide instructions for users on how to operate the Gate in a manner that would avoid injury.[1] ECF No. 16 at 3-4. These allegations also provide the basis for Aguirre's negligence claim against Dematic. Id. at 4. On January 24, 2019, Dematic filed a third-party complaint against Sally Beauty alleging that, based on the express indemnity provision contained in the Gate's installation contract, Sally Beauty is liable for Aguirre's injuries. ECF No. 19 at 2-4. Dematic and Sally Beauty's respective motions for summary judgment followed the close of discovery. These motions are addressed below.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, and other materials in the record show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence and all reasonably drawn inferences must be read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); see also Cty. of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2001).
The moving party “bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 987, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the moving party must “affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Id.
To successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must point to facts supported by the record which show a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 738 (9th Cir. 2000). A “material fact” is a fact “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary judgment is not appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). A dispute regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” See id. at 252.
Dematic argues that it is entitled to summary judgment for two reasons. First, Dematic alleges that there is no competent evidence to support Aguirre's liability theories. ECF No. 137 at 3. In opposition, Aguirre argues that Dematic has ignored evidence establishing manufacturing and design defects and disregarded its own failure to provide user instructions for the Gate. ECF No. 146 at 2. In reply, Dematic alleges that Aguirre: (1) has not set forth admissible evidence that a manufacturing defect exists, (2) sets forth the wrong type of evidence to show a design defect, and (3) fails to acknowledge that Dematic gave Sally Beauty the Service Manual, but Sally Beauty failed to train its employees on how to use the Gate. ECF No. 152 at 5-6.
Second, Dematic alleges that Sally Beauty substantially modified the Gate after it was installed, and the modification caused Aguirre's injury. ECF No. 137 at 3. Dematic claims that the installed Gate was comprised of two parallel adjacent gates that users had to lift independently in order to pass from aisle-to-aisle. Id. at 12. Dematic further alleges that Sally Beauty accepted installation of the two parallel gates, but later made them “twice as heavy” by welding them together and forming the singular Gate at issue. Id. at 13. According to Dematic, Sally Beauty's welding was the substantial modification that proximately caused Aguirre's injury because Aguirre expressly claims that she was injured due to the Gate being too heavy. Id. at 14.
In opposition, Aguirre claims that summary judgment is improper because disputed issues of material fact exist as to whether Sally Beauty substantially modified the Gate. ECF No. 146 at 2, 13. Aguirre alleges that Dematic installed two gates that were bolted together, and that Sally Beauty had no alternative but to weld the gates because the bolts Dematic installed kept coming loose. Id. at 14-15. Thus, Aguirre specifically argues that there is a genuine dispute as to whether Sally Beauty substantially modified the Gate by welding it when it was already bolted by Dematic. Id. at 15. In reply to Aguirre's opposition, Dematic argues that Aguirre misinterprets evidence as to who originally bolted the gates, and claims that there is “plenty of evidence that Sally [Beauty] modified the gate after Dematic's installation.” ECF No. 152 at 4.
In Nevada, “a plaintiff must establish three elements to show strict liability: ‘(1) the product had a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous, (2) the defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer, and (3) the defect caused the plaintiff's injury.'” Prall v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2-14-CV-001313-MMD-GWF, 2017 WL 361545, at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2017) (citing Fyssakis v. Knight Equip. Corp., 826 P.2d 570, 571 (Nev. 1992)). The Nevada Supreme Court has recognized manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn as viable theories of strict liability tort claims. Resoso v. Clausing Indus., Inc., Case No. 2-14-CV-00102-RFB-GWF, 2018 WL 3822462, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2018) (citation omitted). “‘[G]enerally, a substantial alteration [to a product] will shield a manufacturer from liability for injury that results from that alteration.'” Resoso, 2018 WL 3822462, at *4 (quoting Robinson v. G.G.C., Inc., 808 P.2d 522, 525 (Nev. 1991)).
Here, there is a genuine dispute as to whether Sally Beauty's welding of the Gate constitutes a substantial alteration or modification the Gate because whether Dematic installed a bolted or unbolted Gate is entirely unclear. When “reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue [...] summary judgment is not appropriate [.]” See Prall, 2017 WL 361545, at *4 (quotation omitted); see also, Durang, 711 F.2d at 143. While the Court agrees that evidence in the record supports Dematic's argument that it did not install a bolted Gate, evidence also supports Aguirre's argument that the Gate Dematic installed was bolted.[2] First, Tap Chung-the Facilities Maintenance Manager at Sally Beauty in 1999-claimed that he was present during the Gate's installation and noticed that it was bolted soon after the Gate went live. ECF No. 146-18 at 4. Tap Chung also testified that he had to weld the Gate together because the installed bolts kept coming loose. Id. at 5. Moreover, in the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Dematic, Michael McGettigan stated that he had no knowledge of how the Gate was installed including whether it was bolted or not. ECF No 146-15 at 14.
In assessing Dematic's motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to Aguirre. Aguirre has produced evidence that raises genuine issue for trial as to whether Dematic originally installed a bolted Gate, and by extension, whether Sally Beauty's subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial