StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Lawsuite against Target- court cases - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
His friend had purchased a Huffy bicycle from Target, but while in Utah six days later, Kabish suffered serious injuries while riding the…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER92.8% of users find it useful
Lawsuite against Target- court cases
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Lawsuite against Target- court cases"

Case against Target The case against Target which I will discuss is Kenneth Kabish v Target et al, filed in the District Court of Minnesota, decidedon June 26, 2007, Case number: Civ No: 07-2303 (RHK/JSM). The Plaintiff Kenneth Kabish filed a personal injury action against Target and Huffy Corporation in the Hannepin County District Court. His friend had purchased a Huffy bicycle from Target, but while in Utah six days later, Kabish suffered serious injuries while riding the bicycle which was defective.

He filed suit demanding compensation in damages for amounts greater than $50,000, under strict product liability as well as for breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability of the product. Target moved the case to the present Court on the grounds that the charges against it could be dismissed because it was only a nominal defendant, exerting no significant control over the design and manufacture of a defective product. However Tabish filed a motion to remand the case to the Hannepin County District Court.

The decision in this case was in support of the Plaintiff. The Court held that Target’s argument that it was a non-manufacturer defendant and therefore entitled to dismissal of the charges against it, would not hold good because Tabish had also filed for damages against implied warranties of fitness and mercantibility. Dismissal is required only in cases where the suit is filed on the basis of only strict liability claims. As a result, the ruling of the Court effectively held that the charges against Target would not be dismissed and Target remained a viable defendant rather than a nominal party and Tabish was entitled to seek relief from Target.

COPY OF COURT CASE: (Source: Lexis Nexis)Kenneth Tabish, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Huffy Corporation, Impact Resource Group, Inc., National Product Services Acquisition Corporation, and John Does I-X, Defendants.Civ. No. 07-2303 (RHK/JSM)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46411June 26, 2007, Decided June 26, 2007, FiledCORE TERMS: bicycle, removal, nominal, amount in controversy, manufacturer, strict-liability, in-state, defective product, subject to dismissal, non-manufacturer, implied-warranty, contravened, diversity, removable, diversity jurisdiction, principal place of business, frontCOUNSEL:  [*1] For Kenneth Tabish, Plaintiff: Brian E Wojtalewicz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Wojtalewicz Law Firm, Ltd, Appleton, MN.

For Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendant: Brian A Wood, Eric J Steinhoff, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson, PA, Minneapolis, MN.For Huffy Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant: Frederick - NA M Erny, LEAD ATTORNEY, Not Admitted; Michelle L Rognlien, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Minneapolis, MN.For Impact Resource Group, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, National Product Services Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants: Jessica R Wymore , LEAD ATTORNEY, Stich, Angell, Kreidler & Dodge, P.A., Mpls, MN US.

For Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Cross Claimant: Eric J Steinhoff, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson, PA, Minneapolis, MN.For Huffy Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, Cross Defendant: Frederick - NA M Erny, LEAD ATTORNEY, Not Admitted; Michelle L Rognlien, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Minneapolis, MN.JUDGES: Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge.OPINION BY: Richard H. KyleOPINION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERINTRODUCTIONPlaintiff Kenneth Tabish commenced this personal-injury action in Minnesota state court  [*2] against (among others) Huffy Corporation ("Huffy") and Target Corporation ("Target"), the manufacturer and distributor, respectively, of an allegedly defective bicycle.

Target removed the action to this Court on May 15, 2007, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Tabish now moves to remand, arguing that this action was improperly removed because Target is an in-state Defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Tabishs Motion.BACKGROUNDTabish is a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah. (Compl. P 1.) Target is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis. (Id. P 2.) Huffy and the remaining two Defendants are Ohio corporations with principal places of business in Ohio. (Id. PP 3-5; Notice of Removal at 2.)On September 4, 2004, Tabishs friend Joseph DeGrado purchased a Huffy bicycle from Target. (Id. P 7.) Six days later, while in Saltair, Utah, Tabish was riding the bicycle when "the front metal fender and brackets became bound to the rotating tire, causing the front wheel of the bicycle to collapse." (Id. P 8.) As a result, Tabish was thrown from the bicycle, causing him serious injuries. (Id.)On April 25, 2007, Tabish commenced the instant  [*3] action in Hennepin County District Court.

In his Complaint, Tabish alleges that Defendants were negligent in their design, manufacture, testing, assembly, and/or inspection of the bicycle. He further asserts that Defendants are strictly liable for the bicycles defects and that Defendants breached implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. (Compl. PP 9-19.) He seeks damages in an amount "greater than $ 50,000." (Id. P 20.)On May 15, 2007, Target removed the action to this Court. In its Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1), Target asserted that the Court enjoys diversity jurisdiction over this case because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000.

1 Huffy and the remaining Defendants then filed Consents to Targets removal. On May 24, 2007, Tabish filed the instant Motion to Remand.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 The basis for Targets assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 is not clear, since the Complaint asserts only that Tabish seeks damages "greater than $ 50,000." Where a complaint alleges damages under the jurisdictional minimum, "the removing party . . . must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000.

"  [*4] In re Minn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig., 346 F.3d 830, 834 (8th Cir. 2003). Because Tabish has not challenged Targets assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000, and because the Court concludes that this case must be remanded for other reasons (as set forth below), it does not reach this issue.- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ANALYSISCritical to Tabishs Motion is 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), which provides: Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.

Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such action is brought.(emphasis added). Tabish argues that, because Target is an in-state Defendant, it contravened Section 1441(b) when it removed this action on diversity grounds. Target concedes that diversity cases involving in-state defendants generally cannot be removed, but it asserts that removal was proper here because it is merely a "nominal" defendant.

The Court disagrees. In  [*5] support of its argument, Target relies on Minnesota Statutes Section 544.41, which requires the dismissal of a non-manufacturer defendant in a strict-liability action when the defendant exercises no significant control over the design or production of a defective product. Id., subd. 2-3. According to Target, it is entitled to automatic dismissal from this case under Section 544.41 because it merely sold the defective bicycle. As a result, it asserts that it is a "nominal" defendant. 2 (Mem. in Oppn at 3-10.)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 The Court notes that Targets removal of this case from state court is somewhat inconsistent with the notion that it is a "nominal" defendant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section 544.41, however, requires the dismissal only of strict-liability claims. Id., subd. 2 ("the court shall order the dismissal of a strict liability in tort claim against the . . . defendant"). Here, Tabish has asserted implied-warranty claims in addition to his strict-liability claims. Section 544.41 simply does not mandate the dismissal of those claims. 3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Target also asserts that the implied-warranty claims are subject to dismissal for other reasons (besides Section 544.41). (See Mem.

in Oppn at 8-9.) Simply put, the Court cannot  [*6] conclude that these claims are subject to dismissal at this juncture, because Target has not shown that Tabish can prove "no set of facts . . . which would entitle him to relief" on his claims. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957).- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moreover, subdivision 2(d) of Section 544.41 provides that a non-manufacturer defendant is not entitled to dismissal when "the manufacturer is unable to satisfy any judgment as determined by the court.

" That is precisely the case here because Huffy, the manufacturer of the bicycle, filed for bankruptcy on October 20, 2004. (See Huffy Mem. at 2.) See Marcon v. Kmart Corp., 573 N.W.2d 728, 731 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (seller of defective product not entitled to dismissal under Section 544.41 where manufacturer of product had filed for bankruptcy before lawsuit was brought); but see Hill v. Ziegler, Inc., No. C5-95-743, 1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 1342, 1995 WL 634996, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 1995).

As a result, Target cannot avail itself of the protections of Section 544.41.Because Target is not entitled to dismissal of the claims against it under Section 544.41, it remains a viable Defendant against whom Tabish may seek relief. Target, therefore, is not a "nominal" party. See Thorn v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 305 F.3d 826, 833 (8th Cir. 2002)  [*7] (nominal defendant is one "against whom no real relief is sought"); Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 1993) ("A defendant is nominal if there is no reasonable basis for predicting that it will be held liable."). Hence, Targets removal of this action contravened Section 1441(b), and the case must be remanded.

CONCLUSIONBased on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED and this action is REMANDED to the Hennepin County District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk of the Court shall mail to the Clerk of the Hennepin County District Court a certified copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 4- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 The Court notes that Huffy recently filed two Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 24, 26.). Because the Court remands this case, the state court will resolve those Motions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: June 26, 2007s/ Richard H. KyleUnited States District Judge

Read More
Tags
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Lawsuite against Target- court cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1542165-lawsuite-against-target-court-cases
(Lawsuite Against Target- Court Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 Words)
https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1542165-lawsuite-against-target-court-cases.
“Lawsuite Against Target- Court Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1542165-lawsuite-against-target-court-cases.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Lawsuite against Target- court cases

Merrill Lynch - Time for Change

As we all know that change is necessary, an organisational change is when the organization is restructured, and it is bigger than just modifying a program.... It is restructuring of the company.... Change, according to the Institute of Industrial Engineers, is a muscle that develops to abundantly enjoy the dynamics of the life set before us....
9 Pages (2250 words) Case Study

Meeting Consumer Needs

But McDonald's has been involved in innumerable cases related to obesity, coffee burns and also indirectly exploiting plus causing suffering to animals.... There were two activists in Britain who distributed leaflets stating "What's wrong with McDonalds" The company filed a case against them and the men tried to prove their statement but lost the case in the High court.... Thus, they challenged the UK libel law in a European court so the court was forced to re-write the legislation....
5 Pages (1250 words) Case Study

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cases

You do need to do more work analyzing the facts in each of the three cases, mentioning and explaining the rules that come from those cases as a result of the facts before the court, and drawing similarities or differences between those facts and the Client fact pattern.... In sum, the issue is whether there would be a sustainable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distressDISCUSSION This memorandum encompasses three cases applied to the facts presented....
6 Pages (1500 words) Case Study

Deutsche Bank Spy Scandal

The four cases of surveillance concern a nuisance shareholder, an investigative journalist, a supervisory board member suspected of leaking information, four senior bank managers and a private person who sent threatening letters to Deutsche Bank board members.... This paper "Deutsche Bank Spy Scandal" discusses the Deutsche Bank, which employs over eighty-thousand people in seventy-six countries, had suspended its security chief after allegations that Germany's largest bank had spied on people outside the financial institution....
7 Pages (1750 words) Case Study

Discriminating On the Basis of Age

In the second part (findings of the research) relevant cases are being presented in order to evaluate the effectiveness of relevant legal framework in the UK regarding the protection of the rights of employees, especially in cases of age discrimination.... This paper "Discriminating On the Basis of Age" focuses on the fact that the particular topic has been chosen because of its importance for employees across Britain....
20 Pages (5000 words) Case Study

Lawsuits in the USA

Defendants in these suits must spend large sums of money for an attorney and risk losing the case or settle out of court.... all find themselves under an umbrella of fear wondering when and if they will be taken to court even though they have not been negligent or complicit in causing harm to anyone.... 'Rule 11' of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which directed that those who filed frivolous lawsuits in a federal court faced mandatory penalties, was diluted in 1993....
6 Pages (1500 words) Case Study

The Wealth of Nations

It can require companies to provide information and, if necessary, carry out surprise inspections in the offices of companies and, with a court order, in the homes of company personnel.... The paper presents the Cartel case between British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.... nbsp;Cartels are prohibited by competition or antitrust laws in most countries; however, they continue to exist nationally and internationally, openly and secretly, formally and informally....
12 Pages (3000 words) Case Study

Rights of an Agent under Rules of Commercial Law and Common Law

The given case study under the title "Rights of an Agent under Rules of Commercial Law and Common Law" points out that Disputes between the agent and the principal in commercial transactions have been the subject of many lawsuits in the United Kingdom.... hellip; The duties and responsibilities of a commercial agent are clearly defined under the law....
8 Pages (2000 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us