Owens v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00307-TES |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
| Parties | HANS OWENS, Plaintiff, v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., & PERDUE FOODS LLC, Defendants, AND PERDUE FARMS INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. THE VINCIT GROUP d/b/a QSI INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PERDUE FOODS LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant Perdue Foods LLC's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 36] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Perdue Foods contends that Plaintiff Hans Owens' claims against it are due to be dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. With careful consideration to the parties' briefs on the issue and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS Perdue Foods' dismissal motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from Owens' Amended Complaint [Doc. 28] and, in keeping with the cardinal rule for 12(b)(6)-based motions, they are assumed to be true. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 572 (2007). At the time of the incident involved in this case, Owens worked as an employee of The Vincit Group, d/b/a QSI, Inc.,1 at a facility operated by Defendants Perdue Farms, Inc., and Perdue Foods, in Perry, Georgia. [Doc. 28, ¶¶ 7-8]. He had worked at the Perry facility for almost a month, and his sole job was to clean the machinery used by the Perdue entities to process chickens for food products. [Id. at ¶¶ 8-9].
On November 1, 2018, Owens was in the process of cleaning a Chiller machine located in the facility's chiller room. [Id. at ¶ 10]. The Chiller is used to start and aid in the cleaning process for the chickens. [Id. at ¶ 11]. Owens cleaned and removed chicken debris from the inside of the Chiller with a pressure washer. [Id.]. After he was finished pressure washing, Owens followed his training and "pulled the stop cord" to the pressure washer so he could "apply chemicals inside of the Chiller using a spray bottle and a wand." [Id.]. But because Owens was not an "authorized employee," he was not trained to and did not have the ability to isolate power to the Chiller. [Id. at ¶ 12]. While in the process of applying the cleaning agents to the inside of the Chiller, it suddenlyrestarted. [Id. at ¶ 13]. When it did, the Chiller's blades crushed and mangled Owens' left hand. [Id. at ¶¶ 13-15].
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 5, 2020, Owens filed suit against Perdue Farms asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, and punitive damages for his hand injuries. [Doc. 1, pp. 3-5, 7]. Contemporaneously with its Answer [Doc. 5], Perdue Farms moved to dismiss or alternatively substitute Perdue Foods as the correct corporate entity. See generally [Doc. 6]. In support of its motion, Perdue Farms explained that, as the parent corporation of Perdue Foods, it has no direct control or supervision over the day-to-day operations within the Perry facility. [Doc. 6, p. 2]; see also [Doc. 36, p. 2]. Since Perdue Foods "wholly owns and operates" that facility, Perdue Farms explicitly requested that Owens "be required to substitute Perdue Foods as the [d]efendant in th[is] case." [Doc. 6, p. 2].
Owens, however, argued that his Complaint [Doc. 1] asserted "a legitimate claim against Perdue Farms." [Doc. 13, p. 1]. In his response brief, Owens wrote: "If Perdue Foods is the proper party, [he] will dismiss Perdue Farms and add Perdue Foods in accordance with the law and this Court's [yet-to-be-entered] Scheduling Order." [Id. at pp. 2-3]. Owens also mentioned a Proposed Stipulation [Doc. 13-2] in which he, with Perdue Farms' agreement, would dismiss it as a defendant and "add Perdue Foods,while preserving [his] claims against Perdue [Farms]2 in the event evidence is disclosed in discovery that would support claims against it." [Doc. 13, p. 2]; see also [Doc. 13-2]. Owens' argument in his response brief is absolutely correct—"[i]f the evidence establishes that Perdue Farms bears no responsibility for the allegations in the Complaint, [it] can file a motion for [s]ummary [j]udgment." [Doc. 13, p. 3]. Put succinctly, with respect to Perdue Farms, Owens took the position that his Complaint pled "sufficient facts to state a claim against" it and, because of that, he was "intending to prosecute his claims." [Id.]. But then, Owens went further. He noted that "[i]f the evidence establishes that Perdue Foods also bears responsibility, [he] will move to add it" as a defendant. [Id.] (emphasis added). Yes, Owens had the ability to add Perdue Foods and pursue claims against both entities, but the addition of Perdue Foods must be, as he stated, "in accordance with the law." [Id. at pp. 1-2]. And, as the Court will explain below, Owens' window of opportunity to add Perdue Foods "in accordance with the law" closed much quicker than he thought it would.
In addition to mentioning his and Perdue Farms' Proposed Stipulation, Owens attached a copy of it to his response brief. [Doc. 13-2]. The Proposed Stipulation bore the electronic signatures of Owens' and Perdue Farms' counsel and based on what appeared to be a signed stipulation, the Court denied Perdue Farms' motion. [Doc. 15];see, e.g., [Doc. 13-2, p. 4]. The following day, however, one of Owens' attorneys, Kendall Dunson, emailed the Court "to make it clear that[,]" despite the electronic signatures, "Perdue Farms did not agree" to the Proposed Stipulation. Email from Kendall C. Dunson, Att'y for Plaintiff, to Cheryl Collins, Courtroom Deputy for Judge Tilman E. Self, III (Sept. 18, 2020, 1:29 EST) (on file with author). Mr. Dunson further explained that he merely attached the Proposed Stipulation with electronic signatures as he "presented [it] to Perdue Farms." Id. To Mr. Dunson's credit, however, the space in which the parties would have written the date they agreed to the Proposed Stipulation was, candidly, left blank. See, e.g., [Doc. 13-2, p. 3]. Once Perdue Farms objected to the Proposed Stipulation, Mr. Dunson "contacted the Clerk of Court" in an effort to clear up any confusion. Email from Kendall C. Dunson, Att'y for Plaintiff, to Cheryl Collins, Courtroom Deputy for Judge Tilman E. Self, III (Sept. 18, 2020, 1:29 EST) (on file with author). Consistent with the directive from the Clerk of Court, Mr. Dunson "file[d] a substitute exhibit[,]" this time attaching an unsigned Proposed Stipulation. Id.; [Doc. 14-1]. In light of Mr. Dunson's email explaining the mix-up and that it was "not [his] intent to imply that Perdue Farms agreed to the [Proposed] Stipulation[,]" the Court vacated its Order [Doc. 15] denying Perdue Farms' dismissal motion. [Doc. 16]; Email from Kendall C. Dunson, Att'y for Plaintiff, to Cheryl Collins, Courtroom Deputy for Judge Tilman E. Self, III (Sept. 18, 2020, 1:29 EST) (on file with author).
Perdue Farms subsequently filed its reply brief. [Doc. 17]. In that brief, Perdue Farms, ostensibly because of the mix-up with the Proposed Stipulation, withdrew its "request that [Owens] be required to substitute Perdue Foods as a defendant in this case." [Doc. 17, p. 2]. With Perdue Farms' dismissal motion now fully briefed and accompanied by a property tax statement from Houston County, Georgia, and tax documents from Maryland, it was ripe for consideration. See [Doc. 17-1]. However, on October 21, 2020, Perdue Farms withdrew its motion. [Doc. 6]; [Doc. 20].
Almost two months later, on December 14, 2020, Owens moved to amend his Complaint (primarily to add Perdue Foods as a defendant). [Doc. 26]. Neither Perdue Farms nor Perdue Foods objected to Owens' proposed Amended Complaint. See [Doc. 26-1]. So, with the Court's leave, Owens filed his Amended Complaint [Doc. 28] on January 19, 2021. [Doc. 27]; [Doc. 28, p. 8]. After Owens formally added Perdue Foods as a defendant, it filed its Answer [Doc. 35] along with the dismissal motion now before the Court. [Doc. 36].
The gist of Perdue Foods' argument is that the claims Owens asserts against it via his Amended Complaint should be dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds. [Doc. 36, pp. 3-7]. Owens, on the other hand, argues that the statute of limitations for his claims has not yet expired due to an emergency order issued by the Georgia Supreme Court in response to the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. [Doc. 41, p. 3]. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if Owens is right that the Georgia Supreme Courtactually added 122 days to all statutes of limitation, then Perdue Foods is a proper defendant in this lawsuit and its statute-of-limitations arguments never come into play. But, unfortunately for Owens, he misinterpreted that order. And because he did, the Court must address whether his Amended Complaint—adding Perdue Foods as a defendant after the statute of limitations expired—can relate back to his original.
By way of a roadmap, the Court will first address the parties' arguments concerning the Georgia Supreme Court's emergency order before turning its attention to the more substantive dismissal arguments raised by Perdue Foods.
DISCUSSION
To recap, Owens' hand injury occurred on November 1, 2018. [Doc. 28, ¶¶ 7, 13]. Considering Georgia's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, Owens contends that "[u]nder normal circumstances," he would have had until November 1, 2020, to file his lawsuit. [Doc. 41, p. 3]. Of course, though, Covid-19, brought about anything but normal circumstances.
Relying on its emergency powers,3 the Georgia Supreme Court entered several orders that extended statute-of-limitations deadlines. See, e.g., [Doc. 41-1, p. 6]. In itsfourth extension order, the Georgia Supreme Court declared that, "[t]he 122 days between March 14 and July 14, 2020, or any portion of that period in which a statute of limitation would have run, shall be excluded from the calculation of that statute of limitation." [Id.] (emphasis added).
Owens relies on the Georgia Supreme Court's emergency order to support his argument that he filed his Amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial