Green v. Bradley Co.
194 F. Supp. 3d 479
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiff Shameka Green alleges she was injured on Sept. 23, 2011 when a desk collapsed at her workplace; she sued for negligence and two breach-of-implied-warranty theories.
- Original complaint named Herman Miller and The Bradley Company; an amended complaint (May 15, 2015) substituted Open Plan Systems, LLC for Herman Miller.
- Open Plan moved to dismiss the negligence claim as time-barred; the court initially held the amendment related back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c).
- Open Plan moved under Rule 59(e) to alter the judgment, arguing it lacked notice during Rule 4(m)’s period and thus relation-back was improper.
- On reconsideration the court found it erred to impute notice to Open Plan based on a presumed relationship with Herman Miller and dismissed the negligence claim as time-barred.
- The court retained Plaintiff’s two breach-of-warranty claims (six-year statute) and dismissed punitive damages (not recoverable on warranty theories).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amended Complaint relates back under Rule 15(c) so negligence claim is timely | The amendment asserts same occurrence and Open Plan had notice so relation-back applies | Open Plan had no notice within Rule 4(m)’s period and therefore relation-back is improper; SOL bars negligence claim | Relation-back not established; negligence claim dismissed as time-barred |
| Accrual and timeliness of breach-of-warranty claims (6-year statute) | Warranty claims accrued at collapse (Sept. 2011); suit filed within six years | Warranty claims accrued earlier (2009 resale); therefore time-barred | Warranty claims did not accrue in 2009 as a matter of record; claims timely and survive dismissal |
| Privity/standing to bring implied warranty claims | Plaintiff alleges Open Plan was refurbisher/supplier and has standing; privity abolished in SC | Open Plan challenges lack of privity and failure to plead an actual sale | Privity requirement is abolished in South Carolina; Plaintiff adequately pleaded supply/refurbish relationship; claims proceed |
| Availability of punitive damages on warranty theories | Plaintiff seeks punitive damages generally | Punitive damages not recoverable for breach of warranty | Punitive damages dismissed with prejudice (not recoverable under breach-of-warranty) |
Key Cases Cited
- Western Contracting Corp. v. Bechtel Corp., 885 F.2d 1196 (4th Cir. 1989) (notice may be presumed when claim is apparent and the new defendant has identity of interest or received notice)
- Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2007) (closely related business entities may be charged with knowledge for Rule 15(c) purposes)
- Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2014) (refusal to impute notice where evidence shows lack of connection or separate representation)
- Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1998) (Rule 59 permits district courts to correct errors to avoid unnecessary appeals)
- Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Mfg. Co., Inc., 299 S.C. 335 (S.C. 1989) (South Carolina abolishes privity defense to implied warranty actions)
- Holmes v. Nat'l Serv. Indus., Inc., 395 S.C. 305 (S.C. 2011) (discovery rule: statute of limitations begins when claimant knew or should have known of the claim)
- Rhodes v. McDonald, 345 S.C. 500 (S.C. App. 2001) (punitive damages not recoverable on breach-of-warranty theory)