Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacturers

Background

R.M. Sander, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a products-liability action against Enerco Group, Inc. Her complaint used the name “Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacture,” but the court had previously treated the action as naming Enerco as the defendant. Sander alleged that a Mr. Heater space heater caught fire and caused her physical injuries, emotional trauma, pain and suffering, and a three-month hospital stay. In her opposition to the motion, she additionally alleged a month in intensive care and burns to her foot. She sought $26 million in damages.

Sander’s second amended complaint referred to negligence, strict products liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure-to-warn claims. The court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the federal diversity-jurisdiction statute. Enerco moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

For a motion to dismiss, the court generally accepts well-supported factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show that the defendant may be legally responsible. Legal conclusions and bare statements of the elements of a claim are not enough. Because Sander was representing herself, the court read her filings liberally, but it explained that it could not invent factual allegations for her.

The court found that many allegations about defective space heaters and products-liability law were copied from online law-firm articles. It held that Sander’s references to negligence, strict products liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn were unsupported legal conclusions rather than specific facts about Enerco’s product or a defect in it.

The court also considered the Mount Vernon Fire Department report attached to the complaint. The report described a December 20, 2021 fire at two vacant buildings that had previously been condemned. It stated that firefighters found no people, that no firefighter or civilian injuries occurred, that the cause was considered suspicious, and that the exact cause had not yet been determined. The court concluded that these facts conflicted with Sander’s allegations that a heater caused the fire and that she was injured there.

The court identified additional inconsistencies in Sander’s filings. Her second amended complaint referred to smoke and fire at approximately 6:30 a.m., while the fire department report gave an alarm time of 11:33 a.m. Her initial complaint alleged that the relevant fire occurred on March 29, 2020, while the second amended complaint relied on the report about the December 20, 2021 fire. The court said Sander did not explain or reconcile these conflicts. It therefore concluded that she had not plausibly stated a products-liability, negligence, or other claim against Enerco.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although courts ordinarily give a self-represented plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend when the complaint might be fixed through better pleading, the court found that further amendment would be futile here. It concluded that the problems were substantive, that improved pleading would not cure them, and that Sander had already amended twice. The court also noted that, when given an opportunity to file a third amended complaint, she declined.

The court granted Enerco’s motion to dismiss. It declined to grant Sander leave to file a third amended complaint. Under the statute governing appeals without prepayment of filing fees, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied that status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.