Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alley v. MTD Products, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

October 17, 2019

REYNOLDS ALLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
MTD PRODUCTS, INC., et. ah, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          KIM R. GIBSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Before 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 Law.

         II. Jurisdiction and Venue

         The 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).

         III. Factual and Procedural Background[1]

         The 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.)

         The 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 of Law:

         1. 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.)

         2. 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. (Id.)

         A. The Litigation History

         Plaintiff 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.)

         The 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.)

         On May 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.)

         On 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.