In Re: In the Matter of the Fort Totten Metrorail Cases Arising Out of the Events of June 22, 2009
793 F. Supp. 2d 133
D.D.C.2011Background
- This action arises from the June 22, 2009 collision of WMATA trains near Fort Totten, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries.
- Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint and McMillan Estate Complaint allege negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty against Alstom and other defendants.
- Alstom moves to dismiss master and McMillan Estate complaints on grounds of statute of repose, UCC warranty statutes, and duplicative/derivative claims.
- Court addresses whether DC’s 10-year statute of repose, 1987 amended exclusion for manufacturers, and related retroactivity issues bar various tort and warranty claims.
- Court later distinguishes design versus manufacturing claims under the statute, and analyzes whether implied/express warranty claims are duplicative or time-barred.
- Court permits some claims to proceed (negligence and strict liability claims as to Alstom in its designer role; wrongful death/survival claims surviving) and dismisses other warranty-related/duplicative counts without prejudice or with prejudice as set forth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of repose applicability to Alstom | Alstom is not protected as a manufacturer under §12-310(b)(3). | Section 310(b)(3) excludes manufacturers; retroactive amendment revives claims. | Retroactive application applies; claims against Alstom as manufacturer are not barred. |
| Scope of 310(b)(3) (manufacturer exclusion) | Language applies to all manufacturers of equipment installed in real property. | Exemption should be understood narrowly or limited to asbestos matters. | §12-310(b)(3) applies broadly to manufacturers, not limited to asbestos; excludes design-only claims from protection but not all. |
| Breach of warranty claims under UCC time limits | Implied warranties may be grounded in tort (no privity) and discovery rule may apply; express warranties may extend future performance. | Implied warranty claims duplicative of strict liability; four-year UCC limit; discovery rule not applicable to implied warranties; express warranty lacks specificity. | Counts 11 and 15 (implied) dismissed as duplicative; Counts 4 and 6 (express) dismissed; discovery-based relief may be sought if future warranties are discovered; remaining implied/express issues limited. |
| Implied warranty merchantability/seller status | Alstom is a merchant/seller of train-control goods; allegations suffice to plead implied warranty claims. | Need explicit pleading of merchant/seller status. | Implied warranty claims sufficiently pleaded; Alstom deemed merchant/seller for implied warranty purposes. |
| Duplicative/derivative claims (Counts 14,7; 16,17) and survival/wrongful death | Counts 14 and 7 present different theories; Counts 16/17 relate to surviving/wrongful death claims. | Counts are duplicative or derivative of dismissed claims; should be pared. | Count 14 duplicative of Count 7; Counts 16 and 17 survive to the extent related to remaining viable claims; plaintiffs must choose which to pursue. |
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 statute of repose not per se due process violation; rational basis analysis)
- Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (Supreme Court 1988) (retroactivity presumption but express statutory grant may allow retroactive application)
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (Supreme Court 1990) (plain-language evidence of congressional intent in retroactivity)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court 1994) (presumption against retroactivity; depends on congressional intent)
- United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs where unambiguous)