Rose v. Qdoba Restaurant Corporation
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:22-cv-02060
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Rose v. Qdoba, Judge Wright granted Qdoba’s motion, dismissed the implied-warranty count with prejudice, and denied its attorney-fee request.
Qdoba prevailed on the breach-of-implied-warranty claim, which was dismissed with prejudice. The order denied Qdoba’s attorney-fee request and did not rule in this order on the negligence or loss-of-consortium claims.
What happened
In Rose v. Qdoba Restaurant Corporation, the plaintiffs alleged that hot water from a catering setup provided by Qdoba spilled onto Linda Chau Rose, causing serious burns. They sued Qdoba for negligence, breach of implied warranty, and loss of consortium.
Qdoba asked the court to dismiss the implied-warranty claim because Minnesota’s four-year deadline for that type of claim had expired. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on August 5, 2022, but the court determined that the deadline was August 8, 2020. Qdoba also requested attorney’s fees.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted Qdoba’s motion and dismissed the implied-warranty claim with prejudice. She denied Qdoba’s request for attorney’s fees because Qdoba had not provided a formal motion, supporting facts, or legal analysis.
The detailed version
- Rose v. Qdoba Restaurant Corporation · No. 0:22-cv-02060
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- May 19, 2023
Background
Linda Chau Rose and Nathaniel Rose sued Qdoba Restaurant Corporation. The complaint asserted negligence, breach of implied warranty, and loss of consortium. The lawsuit arose from a workplace meeting on August 8, 2016, where the plaintiffs’ team had ordered a take-out buffet from Qdoba. The buffet used trays, aluminum foil pans, hot water, and a lit sterno-type can to keep food warm.
When employees dismantled the buffet, one employee tried to cover the lit can and singed a finger. The employee recoiled and knocked hot water into Linda Chau Rose’s lap, causing burns to her left lower extremity, left hip, and abdomen.
The Roses filed the action in state court on August 5, 2022, and Qdoba removed it to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Qdoba then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which allows judgment based on the pleadings, to dismiss Count II—the breach-of-implied-warranty claim. Qdoba also requested attorney’s fees.
Statute of Limitations
Qdoba argued that Count II was barred by Minnesota’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, or U.C.C. The court explained that the U.C.C. applies to sales of goods, including movable items. Under Minnesota law, an implied-warranty claim generally must be filed within four years after the claim accrues. The four-year period begins when the breach occurs, generally when the seller delivers the goods, even if the injured party does not know about the breach.
The complaint alleged that the buffet setup, including the food and materials used for it, was sold and delivered on August 8, 2016. The court concluded that these items were goods under the U.C.C. Therefore, the implied-warranty claim had to be filed by August 8, 2020. Because the Roses did not file until August 5, 2022, the court ruled that Count II was barred by the statute of limitations.
Ruling
The court granted Qdoba’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Count II was dismissed with prejudice. The order did not dismiss the negligence or loss-of-consortium counts.
The court denied Qdoba’s request for attorney’s fees. Qdoba had not submitted a formal motion or provided factual support and legal analysis sufficient for the court to determine whether fees were warranted or what amount would be appropriate.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.