Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Matos v. Nextrain, Inc.

Citation. 2009 WL 2477516 (D.V.I. 2009)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff suffered injuries after a truck he was driving, which was carrying concrete, rolled over. He brought an action against the manufacturer and seller of the truck, asserting six causes of action. One defendant moved to dismiss, to strike certain allegations, and for a more definite statement.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

  1. On a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true;  plaintiff must allege facts that raise a right to relief beyond speculation.
  2. A motion to strike made pursuant to Rule 12(f) will be denied unless it can be shown that no evidence in support of the allegation would be admissible.
  3. Rule 12(e) allows a party to move for a more definite statement of a pleading.

Facts.

Plaintiff suffered injuries after a truck he was driving, which was carrying concrete, rolled over. He brought an action against the manufacturer and seller of the truck asserting six causes of action: negligence, breach of warranty of fitness, strict liability, breach of warranty of merchantability, loss of consortium, punitive damages.  One defendant moved to dismiss, to strike certain allegations, and for a more definite statement.

Issue.

Should Defendant’s motion for dismissal of the complaint, to strike certain allegations in the complaint, or for a more definite statement be granted?

Held.

Rule 12(b)(6): This motion was denied, in part, and granted, in part.

Rule 12(f): The motion was denied.

Rule 12(e): The motion was denied.

Discussion.

Rule 12(b)(6): Plaintiffs negligence allegations were sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss; the punitive damages claim was dismissed, and although Plaintiffs failed to state a breach of warranty claim, the court allowed Plaintiff leave to amend.

Rule 12(f): The motion was denied with respect to Plaintiffs’ damages request and any fleeting allegations of illegality.

Rule 12(e): The motion for a more definite statement was denied; Plaintiffs sufficiently provided a short and plain statement of their claim.


Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following