Amatruda v. Werner Co., Inc.

Background

Christine Amatruda’s first amended complaint alleged that she was injured while using a ladder. She asserted negligence, strict products liability for design defects, and strict products liability for manufacturing defects against Werner (FID) Co., Inc., Werner Co., Werner Ladder Inc., Werner Funding Corporation, Old Ladder Co. (PA), Inc. f/k/a Werner Holding Co. (PA), Inc., Werner Management Co., and KLI, Inc. The opinion does not describe the underlying accident in detail because those facts were not necessary to resolve the motions.

Werner Co. filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(5), which concerns insufficient service of process. KLI, Inc. filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which concerns failure to state a claim, arguing only that California’s two-year statute of limitations barred Amatruda’s claims against it. Werner Co. later withdrew its Rule 12(b)(1) motion. At oral argument, Amatruda admitted that she had not properly served any defendants other than Werner Co. and KLI, Inc.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Although Werner Co. withdrew its jurisdictional challenge, the court independently reviewed whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. The challenge was based partly on an allegation that KLI, Inc. had its principal place of business in California. The court found that allegation was a mistake concerning a different business using the “KLI” acronym. The court also found that an allegation in a notice of removal filed in a different, terminated case was only an unverified statement by counsel. Based on the parties’ allegations, representations, testimony, and litigation conduct—including Werner Co.’s withdrawal and KLI, Inc.’s failure to challenge jurisdiction—the court inferred that KLI, Inc.’s principal place of business, assuming it had one, was outside California. The court therefore concluded that it retained jurisdiction.

Service of Process

The court granted Werner Co.’s motion to quash service in part because Amatruda had not properly served the other defendants. The court dismissed those improperly served defendants without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court found that Amatruda had properly served KLI, Inc. because she submitted a proof of service that the defendants did not contest. Werner Co. and KLI, Inc. remained defendants in the action.

Statute of Limitations and KLI, Inc.

The court denied KLI, Inc.’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. It held that Amatruda’s claims against KLI, Inc. related back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c)(1)(C). That rule allows an amended complaint changing or adding a party to be treated as filed on the date of the original complaint when the claims arise from the same conduct, the added party received timely notice without prejudice, and the added party knew or should have known that it would have been named but for a mistake about the proper party’s identity.

The court found that KLI, Inc. should have known by November 27, 2019, that its omission from the original complaint was a mistake. KLI, Inc.’s motion to dismiss showed that it knew about the original complaint and identified its former names, including Keller Ladders, Inc. The court also found reasons to infer common control among the defendants and concluded that notice received by Werner Co. could be imputed to KLI, Inc. The court further stated, in the alternative, that California’s equitable-tolling requirements were met because KLI, Inc. could be inferred to have received timely notice, the record did not show prejudice, and the record did not suggest bad faith by Amatruda.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted in part Werner Co.’s motion to quash without prejudice and terminated its motion to dismiss as withdrawn. The court denied KLI, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. It denied all requests for judicial notice except the request concerning the notice of removal filed in the other case. Werner Co. and KLI, Inc. both remained defendants.