Mullinex v. John Crane Inc.

1

PATRICIA E. MULLINEX, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HERBERT H. MULLINEX, JR., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-33

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Newport News Division

November 8, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RAYMOND A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Memorandum Opinion and Order is written to explain the Court's Order issued on October 31.2022, see Order, ECF No. 597, in which it GRANTED Patricia Mullinex's (“Plaintiff') Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (“Motion''). Mot. .1. Pleadings, ECF No 590 (“12(c) Mot.”). John Crane, Inc (“JCI” or “Defendant”) responded see Def.'s Opp. 12(c) Mot., ECF No. 594 (“12(c) Motion), and Plaintiff replied. Pl.'s Reply. ECF No. 596. The Court arrives at this determination following Defendant's pattern of failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Defendant's (a) failure to Answer the Third Amended Complaint, in accordance with Rule I 5; (b) failure to properly respond to Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment, pursuant to Rule 55(c); (c) Failure to Properly Answer the TAC, pursuant to Rules 8 and 10(c); and (d) attempt to nullify the Court's October 24, 2022 order by filing a Motion to Amend its Answer to the TAC. pursuant to Rule 15.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 4, 2016, the late Herbert H. Mullinex, Jr. and Plaintiff filed a personal injury case in Virginia state court based on asbestos exposure aboard Navy ships. Compl., ECF No. I at Ex. I. On March 23, 2018. the action was removed to federal court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. On January 12. 2022, after Mr. Mullinex's death. Suggestion of Death, ECF No. 436, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), substituting Plaintiff as executrix of Mr. Mullinex's estate, Second Am. Compl, ECF No. 450. Then on March 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), seeking recovery for Mr. Mullinex's wrongful death. Third Am. Compl, ECF No. 478.

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment after Defendant failed to file an Answer to TAC. ECF No. 559. In response to the Motion for Default Judgment. Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File an Answer to the TAC on September 15, 2022. ECF No. 564. On October 24, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and barred Defendant from asserting any affirmative defenses to the wrongful death claim. ECF No. 581. On October 25, 2022, the Court granted Defendant leave to file its proposed Answer to the TAC. ECF No. 585.

Relevant to the instant Motion, Defendant's Answer to the TAC was filed on October 26, 2022. ECF No. 587. That same day. Defendant filed a Motion to File a Corrected Answer to the TAC, ECF Nos. 588-589, which the Court denied on October 28, 2022. ECF No. 595. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding the issue of liability on October 26, 2022. ECF No. 590. Plaintiffs 12(c) Motion argues that Defendant's liability should be deemed admitted because Defendant's Answer to the TAC does not satisfy the pleading requirements outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and neither admits nor denies Plaintiffs wrongful death allegations. ECF Nos. 590-591. On October 28. 2022. Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs 12(c) Motion, ECF No. 594, and Plaintiff replied. ECF No. 596.

IL LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay trial, a party may move for a judgment on the pleadings.” A motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when all material facts are admitted and only questions of law remain. Republic Insurance Co. v. Culbertson, 717 F.Supp. 415, 418 (E.D.Va.1989). A court applies the same standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings as for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). Under this standard, courts will favorably construe the allegations of the complainant and assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). However, a court "need not accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts,” nor “accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Eastern Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). In making this determination, the Court considers the complaint, the answer, and any written instruments attached to those filings. Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 116 (4th Cir. 2013).

When a plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings, the motion will be granted if. on the uncontested facts alleged in the complaint and assuming all material allegations of fact in the answer as true, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Greensill Capital (UK) Ltd., 2018 WL 1937063 *1, at *2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2018) (citations omitted). “In other words, if a defendant's answer admits, alleges, or fails to deny facts, which, taken as true, would entitle a plaintiff to relief on one or more claims supported by the complaint, then the plaintiff's Rule 12(c) motion should be granted.” Mitsui Rail Cap., LLC v. Detroit Connecting R.R. Co., 2014 WL 3529214, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 16. 2021).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs 12(c) Motion challenges the adequacy of Defendant's Answer in asserting any responses or defenses to Plaintiffs wrongful death claim and seeks a judgment on the pleadings on the issue of liability. ECF No. 591. Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to judgment because Defendant's Answer neither admits nor denies facts that support her wrongful death cause of action, and this failure to deny material allegations should be deemed a judicial admission as to JCI's liability. ECF No. 590591. Defendant opposes Plaintiffs Motion, arguing that it requests a “non-merits victory” based on Defendant's “oversight.” Def.'s Opp. 12(c) Mot., ECF No, 594 at 1.6. Defendant argues that granting Plaintiffs Motion based on factual allegations that are deemed admitted allows Plaintiff to effectively repackage her earlier Motion for Default Judgment, which the Court denied. Id. Defendant further argues that while the Answer does not properly incorporate by reference its Answer to the SAC or specifically admit or deny all of the TAC's allegations, Plaintiff had fair notice of Defendant's responses and defenses to its claims based on its other pleadings. Id.

In reviewing Plaintiffs 12(c) Motion, the Court evaluates whether: (I) assuming all pleaded facts are true. Plaintiff stated a wrongful death cause of action upon which relief may be granted; (2) Defendant's Answer to the TAC sufficiently addresses Plaintiffs factual allegations by denying any essential facts; and (3) Defendant's Answer asserts any defenses. Because the Court previously barred Defendant's affirmative defenses to the wrongful death claim, see Order. ECF No. 581, the Court limits its inquiry to the factual allegations and corresponding admissions and denials that are relevant to the wrongful death claim. Ultimately, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant's arguments^[1] and finds that the uncontested facts alleged in the TAC, even while assuming all material allegations of fact in Defendant's Answer as true, entitles Plaintiff to a favorable judgment on the issue of liability.

A. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiffs TAC alleges sufficient facts to maintain a wrongful death cause of action.

Plaintiffs TAC sets out a wrongful death cause of action based on theories of negligence and strict liability. Third Amend. Compl. at 8-13 ¶¶ 15-18; 13-15 ¶¶ 19-22; 16 ¶¶ 27-28. Specifically, paragraphs 15-18 describe the duty and breach elements for the negligence claim while paragraphs 1922 describe the duty and breach elements for the strict liability claim. Id. at 8-13 ¶¶ 15-18: 13-15 ¶¶ 19-22. Paragraphs 27-28 state the causation element for both wrongful death claims, alleging that JCI's negligent and reckless conduct caused Decedent to contract and ultimately die from malignant mesothelioma. Id. at 16 ¶¶ 27-28. As discussed in greater detail below, Defendant's Answer to the TAC only responds to paragraphs 6, 7. 8. 29, and 30, and fails to respond to the remaining allegations in Plaintiffs TAC. Therefore, the Court will assume these alleged facts to be true and review the Answer to determine whether judgment on Defendant's liability is appropriate.

B. Defendant's Answer fails to deny Plaintiffs essential allegations, namely that Defendant was negligent and/or strictly liable for conduct that caused Decedent's death.

The Court finds that Defendant's Answer does not deny any of Plaintiffs essential allegations or summarily refute Plaintiffs assertions that Defendant is negligently and/or strictly liable for Decedent's wrongful death. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiffs wrongful death allegations set forth in paragraphs 15-18, 19-22 and 27-28 of the TAC as admitted.

Defendant failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Under Rule 8, when a defendant fails to file an answer that neither admits nor denies a material allegation plead within a plaintiffs complaint, that fact will be deemed admitted by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P 8(b)(1)-(5). A denial “must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(2). “Answers that neither admit nor deny but simply demand proof of the plaintiffs allegations ... are insufficient to constitute a denial.” U.S. v. Vehicle 2007 Mack 600 Dump Truck, VIN 1M2K189C77M036428, 680 F.Supp.2d 816,...