Ortiz v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.

MANUELLA ORTIZ, as surviving spouse of JUAN GUTIERREZ PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. CIV-13-32-D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

March 31, 2015

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Cooper Tire & Rubber Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 52], filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, and its Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Experts, Roderick C. Moe and Craig Lichtblau, M.D. [Doc. No. 40], filed pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Plaintiffs have timely responded in opposition to the motions, which are fully briefed. Because the motions raise a common issue regarding Plaintiffs' proof of damages, and Plaintiffs adopt their arguments regarding the Daubert motion in their summary judgment response brief, the motions are taken up together.

This diversity case concerns the death of Juan Gutierrez Perez and personal injuries suffered by other passengers in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the failure of a tire manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiffs claim the tire was defective in design, manufacture, and marketing/warning, and their Complaint asserts claims of strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Defendant moves for partial summary judgment, seeking a judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' warranty and marketingclaims, and a determination of two other issues: 1) whether Plaintiffs Carlos Morales and Rolando Morales (collectively, the "Morales Plaintiffs") can recover damages for loss of future earnings in the United States; and 2) whether Plaintiff Manuella Ortiz can recover damages as Mr. Gutierrez's spouse for his alleged wrongful death and for her loss of consortium.¹ Plaintiffs do not oppose summary judgment on their cause of action for breach of express and implied warranties, and affirmatively state "Plaintiffs abandon any warranty claims." See Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. [Doc. No. 60], p.1. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs' warranty claims without further discussion.

Standard of Decision

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party. Id. at 255. All facts and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. If a party who would bear the burden of proof at trial lacks sufficient evidence on an essential element of a claim, all other factual issues concerning the claim become immaterial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a dispute of material fact warranting summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. If the movant carries this burden, the nonmovant must then go beyond the pleadings and "set forth specific facts" that would be admissible in evidence and that show a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998). "To accomplish this, the facts must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein." Adler, 144 F.3d at 671; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). "The court need consider only the cited materials, but may consider other materials in the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). The Court's inquiry is whether the facts and evidence identified by the parties present "a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.

Statement of Undisputed Facts²

On June 14, 2012, Plaintiffs were passengers in a 2002 Honda Odyssey van being driven by Fidelino Castro when it was involved in an automobile accident in Texas County, Oklahoma. The accident resulted in Mr. Gutierrez's death and injured the Morales Plaintiffs. The van was owned by Abner Ocasio of Liberal, Kansas. Plaintiffs did not know Mr. Ocasio and did not know he was the owner. Mr. Ocasio had purchased the van in December 2008from Dua's Used Auto Sales with an odometer reading of 91,824 miles. The subject of Plaintiffs' claims is a tire that was manufactured by Defendant in April 2006. Plaintiffs have designated a tire expert to testify about alleged defects in the tire, but he is not qualified as an expert in warning defects and has not provided any opinions regarding such a defect.

The Morales Plaintiffs are citizens of Guatemala who separately entered the United States without legal authorization in 2005 and 2008. Carlos Morales obtained employment with National Beef Packing Company in Liberal, Kansas, using the name and social security number of an individual named Emmanuel Garay, who lives in Los Fresnos, Texas. Mr. Garay does not know Carlos Morales, and did not authorize the use of his identity. Carlos Morales was previously employed by Seaboard Farms but was terminated for using false identification papers and being an undocumented worker. Rolando Morales also obtained employment with National Beef Packing Company using the name and social security number of another person, Carlos Hernandez Ruiz. National Beef Packing Company complies with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 in its employment practices, and is committed to preventing the employment of unauthorized workers. The company would not permit a non-citizen employee to continue working if it discovered that the employee was not authorized to work.

Carlos Morales has not returned to work since the accident. Plaintiffs have designated an economist, Roderick C. Moe, to provide an opinion regarding Carlos Morales' economic losses, including a loss of future wages or earning capacity. Mr. Moe bases his calculationregarding this alleged loss on the amount of wages that Carlos Morales had earned during his employment with National Beef Packing Company.

Mr. Gutierrez was living with Ms. Ortiz, his brother, Ms. Ortiz's sister, and her husband at the time of his death. Mr. Gutierrez and Ms. Ortiz were not formally married; her spousal claims depend on proof of a common law marriage. The couple did not have a joint bank account. When Mr. Gutierrez began working for National Beef Packing Company in January 2012, he was designated as "single" on tax withholding forms. He did not list Ms. Ortiz as the person to be contacted in case of a medical emergency. However, the official death certificate lists Mr. Gutierrez as married and names Ms. Ortiz as his spouse. Ms. Ortiz testified that the couple considered themselves to be married and that she referred to Mr. Gutierrez as her husband. According to the affidavit of a brother, Vincente Gutierrez, the couple considered themselves to be married, introduced themselves publicly as husband and wife, and always acted and treated each other as husband and wife.³

Discussion

A. Plaintiffs' Defective Marketing/Warning Claim

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs lack any evidence to establish a claim based on Defendant's alleged failure to warn consumers of a defect in the subject tire or to establish a causal connection between an inadequate warning and Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. Defendant particularly points to a lack of any expert opinion regarding an appropriatewarning. Plaintiffs respond by arguing that expert testimony is not needed where the case concerns a common consumer product, the facts concerning the dangerous condition are not complex, and evidence of other product failures show notice to Defendant of the inadequacy of its warnings. Plaintiffs do not address the issue of causation.

An essential element of an inadequate warning claim is that the defendant's failure to warn of the unreasonably dangerous characteristics of its product was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries. See Duane v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 833 P.2d 284, 285-86 (Okla. 1992) ("The plaintiff must establish that the failure to warn was a proximate, producing cause of the injuries received."); Cunningham v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 532 P.2d 1377, 1383 (Okla. 1975) ("defendant would be liable only if its failure to warn was the cause of plaintiff's injury").⁴ Plaintiffs present no facts to suggest that Defendant's failure to warn of a tread separation problem in its radial tires was the proximate cause of injuries suffered by the vehicle's passengers, Mr. Gutierrez and the Morales Plaintiffs. On the present record, there is simply no basis for a reasonable finding that the accident and resulting injuries were causally related to any lack of an appropriate warning.

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims based on a failure to warn of an unreasonable danger.

B. Spousal Claims of Ms. Ortiz

Defendant contends Ms. Ortiz cannot establish her status as Mr. Gutierrez's spouse at the time of his death. Defendant argues that Oklahoma law places a heavy burden on aperson claiming a common law marriage to establish the relationship by clear and convincing evidence. See Mueggenborg v. Walling, 836 P.2d 112, 113 (Okla. 1992); see also Standefer v. Standefer, 26 P.3d 104, 107 (Okla. 2001). The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently summarized the essential elements of a common law marriage as follows: "To constitute a valid common-law marriage it is necessary that there should be an actual and mutual agreement to enter into the matrimonial relation, permanent and exclusive of all others, between parties capable of making such a contract, consummated by their cohabitation as man and wife, or...