Crespo v. Mars Wrigley Confectionery U.S.

1

LUIS TORRES CRESPO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARS WRIGLEY CONFECTIONERY US, LLC, Defendant.

CIVIL No. 5:23-cv-00744-JMG

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 17, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN M. GALLAGHER, United States District Court Judge.

I. OVERVIEW

Plaintiffs husband and wife, bring claims against Defendant, Mars Wrigley Confectionary, LLC (“Mars”), after Plaintiff, husband, became trapped in a hardened chocolate substance while cleaning a tank at Defendant's facility. Plaintiffs allege that for six (6) hours, Defendant and Defendant's employees ignored Plaintiff's cries for help, and refused to drill a hole in the tank to free Plaintiff. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' allegations of recklessness, punitive damages, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, Luis Torres Crespo (“Torres Crespo”) and Tsutsumi Cuebas Torres (“Cuebas Torres”)^[1], filed the instant action on January 13, 2023 in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. See Complaint [ECF No. 1-2]. Defendant, Mars Wrigley Confectionary, LLC (“Mars”) removed the action to federal court on February 27, 2023. See Notice and Petition of Removal [ECF No. 1-2].

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, bring claims against Defendant after Plaintiff Torres Crespo spent over six (6) hours trapped in a chocolate micron tank in Defendant's facility. Complaint at ¶ 9. Plaintiffs allege Torres Crespo's employer, I.K. Stoltzfus Service Corporation, an industrial cleaner, was retained by Defendant to clean chocolate tanks at Defendant's factory. Id. at ¶ 5. On or about June 9, 2022, Torres Crespo alleges he was instructed by Defendant's employees to enter a Dove chocolate batching 20 micron tank and clean it. Id. at ¶ 6. While cleaning the tank, Plaintiffs allege a “composite” that was remaining in the tank “hardened,” trapping Torres Crespo in the “composite” and tank. Id. at ¶ 8. Torres Crespo alleges that despite his cries for help and requests that Defendant's employees extricate him, Defendant's employees “refused to extricate the Plaintiff from the hardened substance by simply cutting a hole in the micron tank itself, leaving Plaintiff trapped in the hardened substance for over six (6) hours,” until local authorities arrived on the scene to cut a hole in the tank, freeing Torres Crespo. Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiffs allege Torres Crespo sustained “grave and traumatic injuries, including injuries to his left knee, left kidney, entire left leg from below the knee, head; the full extent of which is not yet known, including, but not limited to, rhabdomyolysis; acute kidney injury; right ankle sprain; right knee sprain, left knee sprain, right leg laceration; anxiety; post-traumatic stress disorder; depression; sleep disturbance; disruptions in functioning including increased feelings of dysphoria, avoidance behaviors at work; increased emotional distress, mode lability and panic; flashbacks; social withdrawal; nightmares; severe aches, pains and mental anguish; injury to his nerves and nervous systems, whereby he has in the past, and will continue in the future to suffer pain.” Id. at ¶ 15.

Plaintiffs' Complaint brings seven counts. Count I appears to bring a negligence claim on behalf of Torres Crespo; Count II appears to aver the damages sustained by Torres Crespo; Count III appears to aver a claim for punitive damages on behalf of Torres Crespo; Count IV appears to aver a false imprisonment claim on behalf of Torres Crespo; Count V appears to aver a claim of intentional inflection of emotional distress on behalf of Torres Crespo; Count VI appears to aver a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Torres Crespo, and Count VII avers a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Cuebas Torres. Id. at ¶¶ 11-41.

On March 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' allegations of recklessness, claims of punitive damages, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3]. Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition on March 10, 2023. [ECF No. 5]. The Motion is now ripe for adjudication.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “The pleading standard ‘is not akin to a ‘probability requirement''” rather, “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint merely has to state a ‘plausible claim for relief.'” Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 558 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)).

“In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must consider only the complaint, the exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of the public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents.” Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010). Courts must “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construe the complaint in the light favorable to the plaintiff, and ultimately determine whether plaintiff may be entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the complaint.” Id. at 229.

IV. ANALYSIS

a. The Court Declines to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Allegations of Recklessness and Claims for Punitive Damages

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's allegations of recklessness and claims for punitive damages on the grounds Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to plead factual allegations demonstrating reckless conduct or supporting a punitive damages award. See Partial MTD at pg. 5 of 9 [ECF No. 3-1].

“To state a claim for punitive damages under Pennsylvania law, ‘the pleadings must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others.'” Incollingo v. Rivera, No. 22-cv-01789, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182094 at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2022) (quoting Mulholland v. Gonzalez, No. 08-3901, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102876, 2008 WL 5273588 at *5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2008)). See also Hutchinson v. Luddy, 582 Pa. 114, 121 (Pa. 2005) (“The standard governing the award of punitive damages in Pennsylvania is settled. ‘Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.'”) (quoting Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742, 747 (Pa. 1984)). This standard is satisfied where a Plaintiff alleges “(1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that (2) he acted, or failed to act, as the case may be, in conscious disregard of that risk.” Hutchinson, 582 Pa. at 124 (emphasis added). See also Ehrenberg v. Lisk Trucking, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-007, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192287 at *17 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2018).

Defendant alleges Plaintiffs “allegations all sound in negligence and are primarily based on a failure to act.” See Partial MTD at pg. 5 of 9 [ECF No. 3-1]. However, pursuant to the foregoing test articulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Hutchinson, a defendant's failure to act may give rise to an award of punitive damages where that failure to act is “in conscious disregard” of a risk of harm to the plaintiff of which the defendant was subjectively aware. Hutchinson, 582 Pa. at 124. Here, Plaintiffs allege (1) Defendant and its employees had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which Plaintiff Torres Crespo was exposed: Defendant failed to “warn Plaintiff that there had been prior entrapments in the tank in question” previously, or that Defendant failed to conduct periodic inspections of the tank or lock out all of the tank's energy sources. See Complaint at ¶ 13 [ECF No. 1-2]. Moreover, the Complaint alleges Defendant became aware Torres Crespo was “trapped in the hardened substance.” Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiffs further allege (2) that Defendant failed to act, in conscious disregard of the risk of harm to Plaintiff: “Despite the Plaintiff's cries for help.. .Defendant Mars refused to extricate the Plaintiff from the hardened substance by simply cutting a hole in the micron tank itself.” Id. Rather than “immediately extricating the Plaintiff from the tank,” the Complaint avers Defendant left Torres Crespo “trapped in Defendant's tank for six (6) hours before notifying local authorities.” Id. at ¶ 13(z). Plaintiffs allege Torres Crespo was “in and out of consciousness” by the time he was extricated. Id. at ¶ 9.

Therefore Plaintiff pleads enough, at the motion to dismiss stage, to warrant discovery on Plaintiffs' allegations of recklessness and claims for punitive damages. See Cobb v. Nye, No. 4:14-cv-0865, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172087 at *9-10 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss claim for punitive damages, holding “Plaintiffs have pled that the Defendants acted in a gross, wanton and reckless manner, and that they acted without due regard for the safety of the Plaintiffs. These allegations, if proven, may support a claim for punitive damages, even though Plaintiffs' Complaint sounds primarily in negligence.”); Schwartz v. Lackawanna Cnty., No. 4:21-cv-1645, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109748 at...