In this case, buyers Guy and Jacquelyn Carrier sued seller Tim Jordaan and Aventure Catamarans after a new fifty-foot catamaran vessel they purchased sank during its first voyage from Florida to Virginia, alleging claims including breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, strict liability, negligence, emotional distress, fraud, and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After the defendants failed to retain counsel or appear in court despite warnings, the court entered default against them and considered the buyers' motion for default judgment. The court granted the motion as to liability on the strict liability, warranty, and Magnuson-Moss claims because the defendants did not show cause why judgment should not be entered, but denied it on the emotional distress, fraud, and FDUTPA claims; it deferred any damages award pending a hearing due to insufficient detail in the buyers' calculations, including for punitive damages.
In Tootle v. CSX Transportation, Inc., a former CSX utility worker sued the railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the former Federal Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts, claiming that her shoulder injuries resulted from cumulative trauma caused by job duties such as cleaning locomotives and lifting heavy objects. The district court granted CSX’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court reasoned that the plaintiff offered no evidence that CSX breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace or that any equipment was defective under the safety statutes, noting that speculation about better equipment or assistance and statistics from other employees’ different injuries did not establish negligence or foreseeability. Because FELA requires some proof of breach and is not a strict-liability statute, the absence of such evidence required dismissal.
This case involves five individual plaintiffs from different states who purchased Frigidaire front-load washing machines manufactured by Electrolux, alleging that design defects in the drum, gasket, and bellows caused persistent mold and mildew buildup that damaged clothing and permeated homes; the plaintiffs further claimed that Electrolux knew of the defect via internal service documents but failed to warn consumers or honor warranties. The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and related causes of action, while seeking to certify a nationwide or multi-state class. The court granted in part and denied in part Electrolux’s motion to dismiss and motion to partially strike class allegations, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in full. The core reasoning centered on plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy state-specific notice and privity requirements for warranty claims, variations in state laws that precluded class treatment, and insufficient predominance and typicality for class certification under Rule 23.
In FPL Food, LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture, a beef processing plant sued the USDA, its acting secretary, and a USDA inspector, alleging that the inspector sexually harassed and retaliated against plant employees from 2004 to 2007, which disrupted operations and prompted claims for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, Bivens actions for First and Fifth Amendment violations, and state-law claims of trespass and interference with contract. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment and Bivens counts but denied it as to the APA claim and the state-law counts, allowing those to proceed while lifting a prior stay. The core reasoning centered on prudential standing limits, which barred the employer from asserting its employees' constitutional rights as a third party without the necessary alignment of interests and hindrance to the rights-holders themselves.
business & regulatorycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure
In this case, plaintiffs Louis Silverstein and Larry Vinson sued Procter & Gamble under a strict products liability theory, alleging that Crest Pro-Health Rinse mouthwash caused temporary tooth discoloration and taste impairment due to its active ingredient. Plaintiff Vinson also claimed the product's warning label was inadequate. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the inadequate warning claim because Vinson admitted he did not read the label, so any insufficiency could not be the proximate cause of his injuries under Georgia law. The court denied summary judgment on the remainder of the strict liability claim, finding sufficient evidence that Vinson suffered a compensable injury and that the product could be the proximate cause based on expert testimony.
Ms. Tobar sued the United States after slipping and falling in the lobby restroom of a federal correctional facility while visiting her incarcerated son, alleging the government failed to keep the premises safe and caused her injuries. After a liability-phase bench trial with witness testimony and evidence, the district court ruled for the defendant. The court concluded that the government had met the applicable standard of ordinary care by maintaining a thrice-daily cleaning and inspection routine in a low-traffic restroom with no prior incidents, that any liquid on the floor had not been present long enough to be discovered through reasonable inspections, and that the lighting was adequate.
