Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacturers
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-10684
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In R.M. Sander v. Mr. Heater, Judge Briccetti dismissed claims against two defendants and ordered service on Mr. Heater.
R.M. Sander, Mr. Hector, Enerco Group Inc., and Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture. Mr. Hector and Enerco Group Inc. were dismissed and terminated from the docket; the court ordered summons to issue for Mr. Heater.
What happened
In R.M. Sander v. Mr. Heater, R.M. Sander alleged that a defective Mr. Heater space heater malfunctioned, started a fire in her Mount Vernon apartment, and caused severe injuries.
Sander named Mr. Hector and Enerco Group Inc. as defendants, but her second amended complaint did not mention either of them outside the case caption. The court therefore dismissed her claims against those two defendants.
The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons for Mr. Heater and directed Sander to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days or request more time. Judge Briccetti also warned that the claims against Mr. Heater may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if she does neither.
The detailed version
- Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacturers · No. 7:21-cv-10684
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 18, 2022
Background
R.M. Sander filed the operative second amended complaint on May 17, 2022, after paying the filing fee. She was representing herself. The court read the complaint as alleging that she purchased a defective space heater manufactured by Mr. Heater for her apartment in Mount Vernon, New York; that the heater malfunctioned and caused a fire; and that she suffered severe injuries as a result.
The complaint named Mr. Hector, Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture, and Enerco Group Inc. The court noted that the complaint mentioned Mr. Hector and Enerco Group Inc. only in the caption and made no allegations against either defendant elsewhere in the pleading. A footnote stated that earlier pleadings identified Mr. Hector as Sander’s landlord, but the court’s dismissal of him was based on the absence of allegations against him in the second amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it may dismiss a complaint as frivolous even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. It may also dismiss a case for failure to state a claim after giving the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to be heard. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, they may not create factual allegations that the plaintiff did not plead.
Because Sander’s second amended complaint contained no allegations against Mr. Hector or Enerco Group Inc., the court dismissed the claims against those defendants. The order did not decide the merits of Sander’s allegations against Mr. Heater.
Disposition
The court dismissed Sander’s claims against Mr. Hector and Enerco Group Inc. It directed the Clerk to issue a summons for Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture and directed Sander to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summons was issued. If Sander did not serve Mr. Heater or request an extension within that period, the court stated that it may dismiss the claims against Mr. Heater under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Clerk was also instructed to terminate Mr. Hector and Enerco Group Inc. from the docket. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.