Abdur Rahaman v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., N15C-07-174 MMJ

On April 24, 2013 Rana Plaza (Savar, Bangladesh) collapsed, killing >1,000 and injuring >2,000; plaintiffs are Bangladesh-resident workers or decedent's representative who worked in Rana Plaza factories.
Plaintiffs sued Delaware-incorporated retailers (J.C. Penney, The Children’s Place, Wal‑Mart) in Delaware Superior Court for negligence and wrongful death, alleging failures in supplier oversight and safety practices.
Complaint filed July 21, 2015 (originally filed in D.C. federal court April 23, 2015 and voluntarily dismissed July 22, 2015); defendants moved to dismiss for (1) time‑bar under Bangladesh law and (2) failure to allege a duty of care.
Court applied Delaware choice‑of‑law rules and the Restatement §145 "most significant relationship" test to determine applicable statute of limitations.
Court held Bangladesh law governs the limitations issue (injury, conduct, and relationship centered in Bangladesh) and that Bangladesh’s Limitation Act Articles 21 and 22 impose a one‑year limitation for wrongful death and bodily injury claims.
Under Delaware law, plaintiffs failed to plead a duty of care: they were not employees of defendants, alleged only nonfeasance, and did not plead any exception (special relationship, peculiar risk, active control, voluntary assumption, possessory control, or sanctioned illegal conduct).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which law governs the statute of limitations?	Delaware law applies (forum interest; federal filing tolled time)	Bangladesh law applies because injury, conduct, and relationship are centered in Bangladesh	Bangladesh law governs under Restatement §145; Limitation Act applies
Were plaintiffs' claims timely under applicable law?	Timely: federal class filing tolled; or Bangladeshi exceptions (general tort law, Indian Succession Act analog, §13 absentee‑defendant tolling, or judicial relaxation) apply	Not timely: Bangladesh Limitation Act Articles 21/22 impose a one‑year limit from date of death/injury, and no applicable toll applies	Claims are time‑barred: Rana Plaza collapse April 24, 2013; Complaint filed July 21, 2015; exceeds one‑year limit
Did defendants owe a legally cognizable duty of care?	Defendants knew or should have known of unsafe conditions; ethical sourcing statements and supply‑chain relationships created duties or factual disputes requiring discovery	No duty: plaintiffs were employees of independent contractors; allegations are nonfeasance and fail to plead a special relationship or any exception that would impose duty	No duty pleaded under Delaware law; negligence and wrongful death claims dismissed for failure to state a claim

Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (motion to dismiss standard and accepting well‑pleaded allegations)
Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (no duty to act absent special relationship)
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Arteaga, 113 A.3d 1045 (Del. 2015) (applying most significant relationship test in tort choice‑of‑law)
Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (class action tolling principles cited by plaintiffs)
Doe 30's Mother v. Bradley, 58 A.3d 429 (Del. Super. 2012) (standards for pleading negligence and nonfeasance special‑relationship analysis)
Monk v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 53 F.3d 1381 (3d Cir. 1995) (construction of Restatement §413 and limits on employer liability to independent contractor’s employees)
Handler Corp. v. Tlapechco, 901 A.2d 737 (Del. 2006) (exceptions imposing duties on general contractors who control safety or premises)