Sharma v. ARS Aleut Construction, LLC, INC.

Background

Shalini Sharma sued ARS Aleut Construction, LLC (ARS) and AMECO over injuries she allegedly suffered in August 2020 while working as a heavy-equipment operator. She alleged that a door on a motor grader snapped out of place, struck her in the head, and sent broken glass into her ear.

The complaint asserted four causes of action: negligence-based products liability, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranty, and negligence. ARS moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. ARS also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike Sharma’s requests for attorney fees and punitive damages.

Strict Products Liability

Under California law, strict products liability generally applies to manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and entities that play an integral role in placing a product into the market. It generally does not apply to businesses that provide or perform services rather than sell products.

The complaint described ARS as providing or overseeing construction services. It alleged more generally that ARS, AMECO, and unidentified defendants manufactured, leased, provided, or helped bring the equipment to the user. The court found that Sharma did not allege facts showing ARS’s specific role in manufacturing or distributing the motor grader, such as decisions ARS made or components it supplied. The court also found that some of the complaint’s broad statements about ARS’s role conflicted with its statements describing ARS as a construction-services company that received equipment from other defendants.

The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss Sharma’s strict-liability claim against ARS, with leave to amend.

Express and Implied Warranty

For an express-warranty claim, the court stated that a plaintiff must allege the exact terms of the warranty. The opinion states that Sharma acknowledged allegations about defendants’ express safety representations had been inadvertently removed from the complaint. The court dismissed the express-warranty claim.

For an implied-warranty claim, California law requires privity, meaning a legally recognized direct relationship between the plaintiff and defendant for purposes of the warranty. The court found that Sharma had not sufficiently alleged privity with ARS. It rejected Sharma’s reliance on a case involving an employee and a manufacturer because the court had already found that she had not adequately alleged that ARS manufactured the motor grader.

The court granted the motion to dismiss both warranty claims, with leave to amend.

Attorney Fees and Punitive Damages

At a case-management conference, Sharma agreed that her requests for attorney fees and punitive damages should be stricken as to ARS. The court therefore struck those requests with respect to ARS.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Sharma was ordered to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the October 5, 2021 order. ARS was ordered to respond within 21 days after Sharma filed it. The order addressed the dismissal of the strict-liability and warranty claims against ARS and the requests for attorney fees and punitive damages against ARS.