793 F. Supp. 2d 133
D.D.C.2011Background
- This action arises from the June 22, 2009 collision of WMATA Metrorail trains near Fort Totten, resulting in deaths and injuries.
- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended Master Complaint against ADCO Circuits, Ansaldo STS USA, Alstom Signaling, WMATA, and ARINC; the McMillan Estate filed a separate amended complaint with similar claims.
- Alstom moved to dismiss counts on time-bar grounds under DC's 10-year statute of repose (DC Code § 12-310) and the UCC four-year statute of limitations, and challenged duplicative and defective breach of warranty claims.
- Plaintiffs allege that Malfunctions in the WMATA automatic train control system (involving Alstom components) caused the crash; replacement components installed around 2004 allegedly reduced system sensitivity.
- Alstom's products were involved as both manufacturer and designer; NTSB reports and internal design/installation issues are referenced in the alleged causation for the collision.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Alstom’s motion, allowing some counts to proceed while dismissing others and requiring plaintiffs to pick between duplicative counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 12-310(b)(3) excludes Alstom from the repose defense | Alstom is a manufacturer/supplier exempt from repose per § 12-310(b)(3). | § 12-310(b)(3) applies narrowly and retroactively to certain manufacturers; design claims may remain barred. | § 12-310(b)(3) applies; however, claims against Alstom as manufacturer are not completely barred; design-related claims are dismissed while other claims survive. |
| Are the implied warranty claims duplicative of strict products liability claims | Implied warranty claims are distinct tort claims and should not be dismissed as duplicative. | Implied warranty and strict liability are the same tort when privity is lacking and should be dismissed as duplicative. | Implied warranty claims are duplicative of strict products liability and are dismissed (Counts 11 and 15 Master; Counts 4 and 6 McMillan) without prejudice for refile if warranted by later facts. |
| Do the breach of express warranty claims have a future-performance basis and are they time-barred | Plaintiffs seek discovery to show express warranties of future performance and tolling rules. | No explicit express warranties of future performance are alleged; limitations expired for delivery-based warranties. | Express warranty claims are barred by the four-year UCC statute of limitations; the contract language cited does not establish a future-performance warranty, though the Court may reconsider if discovery reveals explicit future-performance warranties. |
| Are Counts 7 and 14 duplicative, and are Counts 16 and 17 derivative | Counts 7 and 14 present independent negligent train traffic control theories. | Counts 14 is duplicative of Count 7; Counts 16 and 17 rely on surviving claims. | Counts 14 and 7 are duplicative; plaintiffs must elect; Counts 16 and 17 survive so long as dependent claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesley Theological Seminary of the United Methodist Church v. United States Gypsum Co., 876 F.2d 119 (D.C.Cir. 1989) (retroactive amendment to repose upheld under rationality review)
- Bowler v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 563 A.2d 344 (D.C. 1989) (implied warranty claims in product liability context and privity considerations)
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (S. Ct. 1990) (plain language can show congressional intent against retroactivity)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (S. Ct. 1994) (presumption against retroactivity, but overturned by explicit intent)
- United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F.3d 1234 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (statutory interpretation; plain language controls unless ambiguity exists)