Bragg v. Husqvarna Forestry Prods., N.A.

RODNEY BRAGG PLAINTIFF v. HUSQVARNA FORESTRY PRODUCTS, N.A. INC. et al. DEFENDANTS

Case No. 4:20-cv-4054

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

June 8, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Separate Defendant Cash America Pawn, L.P.'s ("Cash America")¹ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff Rodney Bragg has responded. ECF No. 25. Cash America has replied. ECF No. 29. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF No. 3) in the Miller County Circuit Court in Miller County, Arkansas. ECF No. 1-1, p. 2. Plaintiff seeks relief against Defendants for injuries he received while operating a hedge trimmer manufactured by Defendant Husqvarna and purchased from Defendant Cash America. ECF No. 3, p. 2. On July 2, 2020, Separate Defendant Husqvarna Forestry Products, N.A., Inc. ("Husqvarna") removed this action to this Court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity jurisdiction.² ECF No. 1.

On December 16, 2020, Cash America filed the instant motion seeking summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against it. ECF No. 21. Cash America argues that Plaintiff's negligence claims must fail because the three-year statute of limitations for negligence under Arkansas lawelapsed prior to Plaintiff filing his Complaint. ECF No. 22, p. 4-6. Plaintiff's response argues that his claim against Cash America is for products liability and that he filed his claims within the time permitted by the statute of limitations for such a claim under Arkansas law. ECF No. 26, p. 3-5. Cash America's reply reiterates that Plaintiff's negligence claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that analogous situations in Arkansas courts have found such claims to be time barred. ECF No. 29, p. 1-5.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Hess v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 898 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is a "threshold inquiry of . . . whether there is a need for trial—whether, in other words, there are genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they reasonably may be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A fact is material only when its resolution affects the outcome of the case. See id. at 248. A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party. See id. at 252.

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must consider all the evidence and all reasonable inferences that arise from the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Nitsche v. CEO of Osage Valley Elec. Co-Op, 446 F.3d 841, 845 (8th Cir. 2006). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Enter. Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party must then demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record that create a genuine issue for trial. See Krenik v. Cnty. of LeSueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8thCir. 1995). However, a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion "may not rest upon mere allegations or denials . . . but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Claim Pleaded in Complaint

First, the Court will look to Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether he pled a claim of negligence or products liability against Cash America.

A plaintiff's pleading for relief must contain "a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "Although the rule encourages brevity, the complaint must say enough to give the defendant 'fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 319 (2007) (internal quotation omitted). A plaintiff must do more than offer labels and conclusions in providing the grounds for his relief and a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Once a claim had been adequately stated in a pleading, a plaintiff may then support it by showing facts consistent with the alleged claim. See id. at 563.

A federal court sitting in diversity over state-created rights will apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. See Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 426-27 (1996) (citation omitted). State law claims before federal courts will be governed by the federal rules of pleadings. See Nelson v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 75 F.3d 343, 347 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Asay v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 594 F.2d 692, 698-99 (8th Cir.1979) ("a federal court cannot be bound by a state's technical pleading rules")).

Under Arkansas law, a claim of negligence requires a plaintiff to show that "the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries." Duran v. Southwest Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, 2018 Ark. 33, at 7, 537 S.W.3d 722, 727 (citation omitted). Arkansas' products liability statute reads:

(a) A supplier of a product is subject to liability in damages for harm to a person or to property if:

(1) The supplier is engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling, selling, leasing, or otherwise distributing the product;

(2) The product was supplied by him or her in a defective condition that rendered it unreasonably dangerous; and

(3) The defective condition was a proximate cause of the harm to a person or to property.

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-116-101. Claims for products liability under Arkansas law operate under a strict liability doctrine with no requirement to prove a defendant's negligence. See Williams v. Smart Chevrolet Co., 292 Ark. 376, at 381-82, 730 S.W.2d 479, 482 (citations omitted).

Examining Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff's pleading only put Cash America on notice of a negligence claim against it. Plaintiff's only mention of products liability in his Complaint is worded as "Such product liability was proximately caused by Defendants' negligence." ECF No. 3, ¶ 5. This wording is inherently contradictory because Arkansas does not require any showing of negligence to prevail on a products liability claim. See Williams v. Smart Chevrolet Co., 292 Ark. at 381-82. Plaintiff later asserts that both Defendants were "guilty of negligent conduct" towards him, and none of the allegations against Cash America underlying that assertion fit directly into the statutory elements of products liability. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. The only language in Plaintiff's allegations against Cash America that mirrors the products liability statute is "proximate cause," which overlaps with the language for a negligence claim. Also, Plaintiff never cites to Arkansas' products liability statute in his Complaint. Plaintiff did not make anyreference to statutory authority regarding products liability until responding to the instant motion. ECF No. 26, p. 3-4. It would be unreasonable to expect Cash America to know of any claim brought against it other than negligence when reading the Complaint. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet Rule 8(a)(2)'s requirement that his pleading give fair notice to Cash America of a claim of products liability against it. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. at 319. While the factual allegations put forth by Plaintiff may be able to make a pleading of products liability properly "plausible," a claim must first be properly stated before factual support can make a pleading whole. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57, 563. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint only pled a claim of negligence against Defendant Cash America.

B. Asserting New Claim in Response to Summary Judgment Motion

After finding that Plaintiff did not plead a claim of products liability in his Complaint, the Court will next determine if it is appropriate for Plaintiff to assert a claim for the first time while opposing Cash America's motion for summary judgment.

Parties typically cannot assert new claims in motions pertaining to summary judgment. See Hildreth v. City of Des Moines, 773 F. App'x. 334, 335 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald and Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004)).³ A claim cannot be raised for the first time while opposing summary judgment, and the correct manner for a party to assert a new claim is to seek to amend its complaint. See Gilmour, 382 F.3d at 1315 (citing Shanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir. 1996) ("A plaintiff may not amend his complaint througharguments in his brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment")). "Liberal pleading does not require that, at the summary judgment stage, defendants must infer all possible claims that could arise out of facts set forth in the complaint." Gilmour, 382 F.3d at 1315; see also Barclay White Skanska, Inc. v. Battelle Memorial Institute, 262 F. App'x 556, 563 (4th Cir. 2008) (finding that liberal pleading does not allow new claims to be raised by a plaintiff after discovery has commenced without further amending the complaint).

The Court finds that Plaintiff should not be permitted to assert a products liability claim for the first time in his response to the instant motion. Plaintiff did not plead a claim of products liability against Cash America in his Complaint and cannot be permitted to raise such a claim while opposing Cash America's motion for summary judgment.⁴ See Gilmour, 382 F.3d at...