Hicks v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.

684 F.Supp.3d 1223

Wade HICKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC., et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 22-CV-61176-RAR

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

Signed July 26, 2023

Amanda Leckman DePaulis, Pro Hac Vice, Leckman Law LLC, White Oak, PA, Jesse Nisan Bernheim, Bernheim Kelley Battista & Bliss, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Scott M. Sarason, Melissa Ivy Softness, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Daniel Philip Stiffler, Baumann, Gant, & Kelley P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant Kings Bay Powersports.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), [ECF No. 18]. Each Defendant filed their own Motion. See Bombardier Recreational Products' Motion to Dismiss ("BRP Mot."), [ECF No. 20]; Kings Bay Powersports' Motion to Dismiss ("KBP Mot."), [ECF No. 21]. Plaintiffs have responded to each Motion. See Response to BRP Mot., [ECF No. 22]; Response to KBP Mot., [ECF No. 24]. Each Defendant filed a reply. See BRP Reply, [ECF No. 25]; KBP Reply, [ECF No. 26]. The Court having carefully considered the relevant submissions and applicable law, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.'s ("Bombardier" or "BRP") Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART, and Defendant Kings Bay Powersports' ("Kings Bay" or "KBP") Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. Counts VI, VIII, and XII are DISMISSED for the reasons set forth within.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Wade and Erin Hicks (husband and wife) and Plaintiffs Lily, Hunter, and Owen Hicks (children of Plaintiffs Wade and Erin Hicks) bring this action against Defendants Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. and Kings Bay Powersports. Am. Compl. at 1. Plaintiffs are citizens of Florida. Id. ¶ 10. Bombardier is a foreign for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Canada, headquartered in Quebec, Canada. Id. ¶ 11. Kings Bay is a business located in Kingsland, Georgia, approximately six miles north of the Georgia/Florida border. Id. ¶ 13.

On August 18, 2020, Defendant Kings Bay sold a 2019 Can-Am Maverick Sport DPS side-by-side vehicle ("Vehicle") to a non-party, Carrie Brewster, in Kingsland, Georgia, for use by Plaintiffs Wade Hicks and Erin Hicks. Id. ¶ 19. This case arises from Plaintiff Wade Hicks' rollover incident while operating the Vehicle designed and manufactured by Defendant Bombardier. Id. ¶ 2.

Plaintiffs contend that on October 31, 2020, Plaintiff Wade Hicks "properly used the seatbelt in the [Vehicle], the seatbelt did not adequately restrain him, and he was seriously injured during the rollover accident." Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs state that as the Vehicle tipped over, Wade Hicks' "seatbelt became loose such that it failed to restrain Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's head and right shoulder contacted the [Vehicle]. Plaintiff [Wade Hicks] suffered excruciating physical pain as a result of the impact." Id. ¶ 24. Wade Hicks' "wife Erin Hicks, his mother-in-law Carrie Brewster, and his two children Lily and Hunter Hicks were present and witnessed the accident." Id. ¶ 25. Though Carrie Brewster purchased the vehicle and witnessed the incident, she is not a party to this action.

Shortly after the incident, "Plaintiff was treated for a laceration of the scalp and was later diagnosed with an AC joint separation," which required reconstruction surgery. Id. ¶¶ 26, 27. Plaintiffs further allege that "[f]ollowing the accident, Plaintiff has not regained the full use of his shoulder, and his physical abilities are severely limited. Plaintiff[ ] cannot perform many of the responsibilities related to his job that he was able to perform prior to the accident. Plaintiff cannot perform many of the household duties he was able to perform before the accident. Plaintiff's limited physical abilities have adversely impacted his relationships with his wife and his children." Id. ¶ 9.

Plaintiffs contend that the vehicle "presents a safety hazard and is unreasonably dangerous to consumers" because it includes a "3-point seatbelt" which "does not adequately restrain a driver, making it more likely that the driver will be seriously injured during a rollover accident, even when the seatbelt is properly used." Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs further contend that "alternative reasonable designs exist for the 3-point seatbelt" such as Bombardier's own 4-point harness which it advertises on its website. Id. ¶ 6. Customers have the option to add the 4-point seatbelt as an optional feature to the Vehicle. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs allege that "even though the 4-point harness is an optional feature, Defendants know that the 4-point harness is safer than a 3-point seatbelt in that it is more likely to adequately restrain a driver" and Bombardier states on its website that "the 4-point harness absorbs additional energy in case of accident." Id.

Plaintiffs bring the following claims against both Defendants unless otherwise noted: (I) Failure to Warn (Strict Liability); (II) Design Defect (Strict Liability); (III) Manufacturing Defect (Strict Liability); (IV) Negligence; (V) Negligence for Permanent Injury to Parent; (VI) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Against Bombardier; (VII) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Against Kings Bay; (VIII) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose Against Bombardier; (IX) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose Against Kings Bay; (X) Negligent Misrepresentation against Bombardier; (XI) Loss of Consortium; and (XII) Violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").

Defendants have each filed a Motion to Dismiss. Kings Bay argues that Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege personal jurisdiction over it; the Amended Complaint should be dismissed as a shotgun pleading; and Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against Kings Bay with respect to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VII, IX, XI, and XII. Kings Bay alternatively requests a more definite statement and maintains that Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages and attorneys' fees should be stricken. See generally KBP Mot. Bombardier's Motion raises many of the same arguments, although Bombardier does not challenge personal jurisdiction or Counts VII and IX against Kings Bay. Bombardier further challenges the sufficiency of additional claims against it in Counts VI, VIII, and X. See generally BRP Mot. Together, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of every Count.

The Court will begin by addressing all applicable legal standards. Then, the Court will analyze Kings Bay's jurisdictional arguments. The Court will then turn to Defendants' argument that the Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading, followed by Defendants' arguments that each Count fails to state a claim. Lastly, the Court will briefly address whether Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees should be stricken.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Personal Jurisdiction

To determine whether personal jurisdiction exists, a federal court sitting in diversity undertakes a two-step inquiry: "the exercise of jurisdiction must (1) be appropriate under the state long-arm statute and (2) not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." AcryliCon USA, LLC v. Silikal GmbH, 985 F.3d 1350, 1363-64 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Intern., Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2010)). "There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general." Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1516 n.7 (11th Cir. 1990). "General personal jurisdiction is based on a defendant's substantial activity in [a state] without regard to where the cause of action arose," whereas "specific personal jurisdiction authorizes jurisdiction over causes of action arising from or related to the defendant's actions within [a state]." Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). To determine whether a cause of action "arises out of" or "is related to" a defendant's actions in a state, the court need not require "proof of causation—i.e., proof that the plaintiff's claim came about because of the defendant's in-state conduct." Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1026, 209 L.Ed.2d 225 (2021). However, "the phrase 'relate to' incorporates real limits, as it must to adequately protect defendants foreign to a forum." Id.

Where no evidentiary hearing is held on a motion to dismiss, "[a] plaintiff seeking the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant bears the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction." United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009). "A prima facie case of personal jurisdiction is established if Plaintiffs present 'enough evidence to withstand a motion for directed verdict.' " In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., 396 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1139 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (quoting Consol. Dev. Corp. v. Sherritt, Inc., 216 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2000)). "The Court must accept allegations as true, to the extent that they are uncontroverted by the Defendants' affidavits and depositions, and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs." Id. A defendant challenging personal jurisdiction must present evidence to counter the plaintiffs' allegations. See Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall, 557 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the defendant must "raise, through affidavits, documents or testimony, a meritorious challenge to personal jurisdiction"). Once the defendant has presented sufficient evidence, "the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction by affidavits, testimony or documents." Id.

As a general rule, courts should address...