Apparent Typo Means Products Liability Case Against Goodyear Stays in Federal Court
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a products liability suit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. will remain in federal court because the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was based on the joinder of a "non-existent" entity that was apparently the product of a typo on the Pennsylvania Department of State's website.
March 12, 2018 at 05:00 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a products liability suit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. will remain in federal court because the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was based on the joinder of a “non-existent” entity that was apparently the product of a typo on the Pennsylvania Department of State's website.
U.S. District Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs Shane Loveland and Jacob Summers' motion to remand the case to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, finding that the joinder of the defendant referred to as “Pennsylvania Goodyear” was improper—because, the judge said, there is no such entity.
According to Slomsky's opinion, on May 1, 2015, Loveland and Summers were traveling in a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado when the right rear tire of the vehicle suffered a tread separation, which caused the driver to lose control of the vehicle. The vehicle crossed into the middle of the road and rolled over. Loveland sustained significant brain damage and other injuries, while Summers suffered orthopedic injuries.
Summers, along with Loveland's mother, Rysta Leona Susman, sued Goodyear alleging the company designed, manufactured, marketed and distributed the tire involved in the accident.
The lawsuit was filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, but the co-defendant referred to as “Ohio Goodyear” removed the matter to federal court citing diversity of citizenship.
According to Slomsky, Daniel T. Young, assistant secretary of Ohio Goodyear, said in a sworn declaration that “although the Pennsylvania Department of State website lists Pennsylvania Goodyear as an active, domestic Pennsylvania corporation, the documents under the Pennsylvania Goodyear heading relate to Goodwear Tire & Rubber Company, a separate entity, and apparently were linked to Pennsylvania Goodyear in error.”
“He stated that to the best of his knowledge and belief, Ohio Goodyear 'is not and has never been related to' Goodwear and that the tire at issue was designed and manufactured by Ohio Goodyear,” Slomsky said.
The plaintiffs, however, argued that there were questions as to whether Pennsylvania Goodyear actually did exist and that because Goodwear is a Pennsylvania entity, removal to federal court is precluded under the forum defendant rule.
Slomsky, however, disagreed.
“In the instant case, Goodwear was fraudulently joined and can be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction because no reasonable basis in fact supports the claims against it,” Slomsky said. “As an initial matter, the court finds that the doctrine of fraudulent joinder applies in this case, even though Goodwear is a citizen of Pennsylvania and therefore a forum defendant. Although plaintiffs cite decisions from the Southern District of Illinois to argue that the doctrine should not apply, numerous courts in the Third Circuit have held that fraudulent joinder applies to forum defendants.”
Justin Kerner of DLA Piper in Philadelphia represents Goodyear and Daniel Sherry of Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck represents the plaintiffs.
“This is likely one of the few cases where a corporate registration with the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was actually changed during Rule 12 Motion practice. Nevertheless, we respect Judge Slomsky's ruling and are currently considering all options,” Sherry said.
Kerner did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250