Harris v. City Cycle Sales, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-2264-EFM |
| Parties | JEREMY LEON HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CITY CYCLE SALES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Jeremy Harris brings this action against Defendant City Cycle Sales, Inc. (“CCS”) alleging negligence and Kansas Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”) claims arising out CCS's service of Plaintiff's motorcycle and a subsequent accident in 2014. CCS seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's KCPA claims, which Plaintiff asserted in a prior state court action, based on his abandonment and waiver of those claims in the state court action, as well as the doctrine of res judicata and the expiration of the statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court denies Defendant's Motion (Doc. 13).
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Complaint documents incorporated by reference therein, and pleadings and public records from Plaintiff's prior state court action against CCS.[1]
At the time of the events in question, Plaintiff was actively enlisted in the United States Army and stationed at Fort Riley near Junction City, Kansas. On February 17, 2014 Plaintiff purchased a new Harley Davidson VRSCDX (“V-Rod”) motorcycle from a dealership in Olathe, Kansas. The V-Rod came equipped with an anti-lock brake system (“ABS”) designed to prevent its wheels from locking up during brake application, which can result in a dangerous loss of control. Shortly after he purchased the V-Rod, Plaintiff noticed that its ABS light was flashing continuously and, during a roundtrip from Junction City to Texas and back in late March or early April 2014, he noticed that the light sometimes flashed continuously, sometimes remained illuminated, and sometimes went completely off for short periods of time.
CCS is located in Junction City and provides “Authorized Service” on Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Concerned that the V-Rod's ABS was not functioning properly, Plaintiff took the motorcycle to CCS's service department on April 14, 2014, for the Harley-Davidson 1, 000-mile scheduled maintenance and service on the ABS. When specifically requesting service on the ABS, Plaintiff expressed his concerns and described in detail the ABS light's behavior since he purchased the motorcycle two months earlier. CCS agreed to perform the requested service and took possession of the V-Rod.
The following day, a CCS representative called Plaintiff and told him that service was complete, and the V-Rod was ready to be picked up. When Plaintiff arrived at CCS to pay for service and pick up the motorcycle, the CCS service manager and technician told him that the 1, 000-mile scheduled service had been performed, that there were no ABS recalls or diagnostic trouble codes to check, that there were no problems with the ABS, and that “everything look[ed] good” and the V-Rod was “safe to ride.” After this service, the ABS light continued exhibiting the same sporadic flashing as it had since Plaintiff had first purchased it.
On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff was operating the V-Rod at a speed of 25 miles per hour when he attempted to brake for a yellow traffic signal. Shortly after Plaintiff began applying the brakes, the ABS warning light illuminated and Plaintiff heard a “loud screech.” One or both of the V-Rod's wheels locked up, causing the motorcycle to crash onto its left side and slide along the pavement with Plaintiff's leg pinned between it and the ground. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to his left knee, ankle, and foot. In December 2015, the Army's Physical Evaluation Board determined that Plaintiff was unfit to continue military service due to the injuries he sustained in the May 20, 2014, motorcycle crash, and Plaintiff was therefore medically discharged from the army.
Following the accident, the V-Rod was taken to Historic Harley-Davidson (“Historic”), an authorized Harley-Davison dealer in Topeka, Kansas, for repair. Historic prepared two work order estimates or invoices-one for work necessary to repair the damage caused by the accident, and one for diagnostics, servicing, and repairs related to the pre-existing ABS problem. The work order invoice relating to ABS repairs indicates that Historic installed a new ABS module and repaired a pinched wire in the harness, which eliminated the ABS diagnostic trouble codes. Since Historic performed diagnostics, servicing, and repair on the V-Rod, there have been no issues with the ABS light and the motorcycle has functioned properly.
Plaintiff originally filed suit against CCS on May 19, 2016, in Geary County District Court, Case No. 2016-CV-000174 (“District Court Case”). He brought claims for negligence and violations of the KCPA arising from CCS's service of the V-Rod, representations to Plaintiff regarding that service, and Plaintiff's subsequent accident. CCS brought several comparative fault claims, including that Plaintiff lacked the training and experience necessary to safely operate the V-Rod.
On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff submitted his Amended Pretrial Questionnaire in the District Court Case, which included both negligence and KCPA counts. On July 23, 2018, both parties submitted proposed jury instructions to the district court by email; Plaintiff's version did not include a proposed jury instruction on his KCPA theory of liability.
The District Court Case was tried to a jury from August 6 to August 10, 2018. At the instruction conference after the parties rested, Plaintiff again did not submit any proposed instructions for his KCPA claims and, when the district court asked if Plaintiff proposed any further instructions, his counsel said no. The instructions given to the jury did not mention the KCPA or Plaintiff's claims thereunder, and Plaintiff did not object to this omission. While Plaintiff did not object to the lack of a jury instruction on his KCPA theory of liability, he did object to the jury instruction on CCS's comparative fault claim. The district court overruled that objection.
On August 10, 2018, the jury returned a verdict for CCS, finding Plaintiff 100 percent at fault for his accident and CCS zero percent at fault. The district court entered a journal entry of judgment for CCS to that effect on August 22, 2018. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which did not include any issue relating to his KCPA claims. That motion was denied. Plaintiff then appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial and all other adverse rulings reflected in the district court's journal entry of judgment. The docketing statement Plaintiff filed in the Kansas Court of Appeals does not refer to his KCPA claims and indicates that the district court's journal entry of judgment is a “final disposition as to all claims by all parties.”
On January 21, 2020, the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for CCS and against Plaintiff and “remand[ed] with directions for a new trial, ” finding that the district court's jury instruction on Plaintiff's comparative fault due to lack of adequate training and experience injected reversible error into the trial and verdict. The appellate decision does not mention Plaintiff's KCPA claims. The Kansas Court of Appeals issued its Mandate on the appeal on February 27, 2020. In relevant part, the mandate states: “[O]n January 21, 2020, on consideration of the appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Court of Appeals that the judgment of the district court be reversed and remanded with directions.”
On January 12, 2021, the parties agreed to and filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice of the District Court Case. They further agreed that “the Kansas Administrative Orders related to Covid-19 will not extend the six-month period for re-filing under KSA § 60-518.”
Plaintiff filed the present action on June 10, 2021, asserting both negligence and KCPA claims. CCS filed an answer on July 21, 2021, in which it asserted a number of affirmative defenses including failure to state a claim, expiration of the statute of limitations, law of the case, res judicata, and waiver. CCS now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's KCPA claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), asserting that the foregoing defenses apply because those claims were raised in the District Court Case but not submitted to the jury or pursued on appeal.
Because a responsive pleading has already been filed, Defendant's motion is more properly styled as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) rather than a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). This is a distinction without meaningful difference, however, as the standard is the same under both rules.[2] A defendant may move for dismissal of any claim for which the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[3]Upon such motion, the court must decide “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ”[4] A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient for the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.[5] The plausibility standard reflects the requirement in Rule 8 that pleadings provide defendants with fair notice of the nature of claims as well the grounds on which each claim rests.[6] In ruling on the motion, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, but need not afford such a presumption to legal conclusions.[7] Viewing the complaint in this manner, the court must decide whether the plaintiff's allegations give rise to more than speculative possibilities.[8]
CCS argues that Plaintiff cannot pursue KCPA claims in...
To continue reading
Request your trial