United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
GIBSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Plaintiff Reynolds Alley's Petition for
Delay Damages (ECF No. 122) and Defendants MTD Products,
Inc., MTD Consumer Group, Inc., MTD Holdings, Inc., MTD LLC,
and MTD Products Ltd's (collectively, "MTD")
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF No. 125).
The motions are fully briefed (ECF Nos. 124, 126, 129, 133,
134) and ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, the
Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Delay Damages and
DENY MTD's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Jurisdiction and Venue
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. While Plaintiff failed to
affirmatively assert that venue is proper, MTD failed to
object and accordingly waived the objection. (ECF Nos. 11,
12.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)(B).
Factual and Procedural Background
case arises from injuries that Plaintiff sustained while
handling a snow thrower manufactured by MTD. (ECF No. 11
¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that, on or about January 19,
2015, when he was seating the bead of a tire onto the snow
thrower rim and/or inflating the tire, the rim failed and
burst, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe injuries.
(Id. ¶¶ 10-11.)
Court accepted as true the facts in the following two
paragraphs for the purpose of deciding the Motion for Summary
Judgment, and accepts them as true again for purposes of
ruling on MTD's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter
Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident. (ECF No. 33 ¶
1.) Plaintiff purchased the snow thrower in Pennsylvania
(Id. at ¶ 6) and only ever used it in
Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff's
injury occurred in Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 8.)
MTD has manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution
facilities in four states and several foreign countries.
(ECF No. 28 ¶ 13.) MTD is incorporated in Delaware and
has its principal place of business in Ohio. (Id.
¶ 5.) The snow thrower that injured Plaintiff was
engineered, designed, manufactured, and tested by Defendant
MTD in its Valley City, Ohio plant. (Id.
¶¶ 6-11.) MTD produced the snow thrower in
question on September 8, 2004, and shortly thereafter sold
it to Lowe's, a national retailer, FOB MTD's
manufacturing facility in Ontario, Canada. (Id.
¶ 12.) Upon receiving the snow thrower, Lowe's
shipped it to its distribution center located in
Minersville, Pennsylvania, in September 2004.
filed his Complaint before this Court on January 10, 2017.
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently amended his Complaint on
February 2, 2017. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff asserts two claims
against MTD: (1) strict products liability (Count I) and (2)
negligence (Count II). (Id. at 3-8.) MTD filed its
Motion for Summary Judgment on April 4, 2017 (ECF No. 26.),
which this Court denied on December 20, 2017. (See
ECF No. 47.)
parties did not conduct fact discovery while MTD's Motion
for Summary Judgment was pending, and told the Court that
there were still several depositions that the parties needed
to take. (ECF No. 46.) In its Pretrial Order of January 8,
2018, the Court initially scheduled trial for May, 2018. (ECF
No. 49.) On February 1, 2018, the parties filed joint motions
to amend the Initial Scheduling Order and the Pretrial Order,
requesting trial be moved until September 2018, or later.
(See ECF Nos. 50, 51.) The Court granted the motions
and set trial for September 4, 2018 (ECF No. 53.)
4, 2018, MTD moved for a protective order in relation to one
of Plaintiff's discovery requests. (ECF Nos. 57, 58.) In
response, on May 14, 2018, Plaintiff requested an amendment
to the scheduling order; which this Court granted on May 15,
2018, and extended discovery past the September, 2018 trial
date. (See ECF Nos. 59, 60, 61.) This Court granted
MTD's request for a protective order on September 28,
2018. (ECF No. 74.) At a status conference conducted on
November 1, 2018, this Court proposed a trial date of May,
2019, and the parties consented to scheduling trial at that
time. (ECF No. 75.)
December 6, 2019, the Court issued an amendment to the
scheduling order, setting January 31, 2019 as the close of
fact discovery, February 15, 2019, as Plaintiff's expert
disclosure deadline, and March 10, 2019, as MTD's expert
disclosure deadline. (ECF No. 77.) On March 8, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time, informing the Court
that: (1) "by agreement of the parties,"
Plaintiff's deposition had occurred on March 5, 2019,
after the date set for close of fact discovery; (2) Plaintiff
underwent surgery on March 6, 2019, had not yet received his
medical records by the date set, and intended to call the
surgeon who operated on him as an ...