United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Tyler Armstrong, as Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Terrance W. Armstrong, Deceased, and Joshua McCaskey, as Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Kari Jo Armstrong, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC f/k/a Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, LTD.; The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, and Harley Davidson, Inc., Defendants.
H. George, Esq. and Hilliard Munoz Gonzales,
L.L.P. and Markus C. Yira, Esq. and Yira Law Office, Ltd,
counsel for plaintiffs.
W. Hedger Esq. and Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C., and
Mark A. Solheim, Esq. and Larson King, LLP, counsel for
defendant Sumitomo Rubber.
N. Johnson, Esq. and Nilan Johnson Lewis PA,
and Steven I. Klein, Esq. and Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell,
counsel for defendant Harley-Davidson.
S. Doty, Judge
matter is before the court upon the motions to dismiss by
defendants Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, f/k/a Goodyear Dunlop
Tires North America, Ltd., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, and Harley-Davidson, Inc. Based on a review of the
file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following
reasons, the motions are granted.
product liability case arises from the deaths of Terrence W.
Armstrong and Kari Jo Armstrong. On or about April 10, 2009,
the Armstrongs installed a Dunlop D402 tire on their 2000
Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic motorcycle. Compl. ¶¶
10, 14, 17. On July 4, 2013, the Armstrongs were killed while
riding the motorcycle. Id. ¶¶ 18, 19.
Plaintiffs Tyler Armstrong, as trustee for the next-of-kin of
Terrance W. Armstrong, and Joshua McCaskey, as trustee for
the next-of-kin of Kari Jo Armstrong, allege that the tire
“catastrophically deflated, causing a loss of control
and crash of the Motorcycle.” Id. ¶ 19.
August 2014, plaintiffs filed a suit in Hennepin County
against Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd., alleging
that the tire was defective and the cause of the accident. A
few months later, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit
without prejudice. Then, on July 5, 2016, plaintiffs
initiated a new Hennepin County lawsuit, alleging design
defect, manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligence, misrepresentation,
and fraud against the Goodyear defendants, and failure to
warn, marketing defect, and negligence against Harley
Davidson. Defendants timely removed and now move to
dismiss the complaint.
Standard of Review
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
“‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Braden v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
[has pleaded] factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
556 (2007)). Although a complaint need not contain detailed
factual allegations, it must raise a right to relief above
the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
“[L]abels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action” are not sufficient
to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
court does not consider matters outside the pleadings under
Rule 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). The court may, however,
consider matters of public record and materials that are
“necessarily embraced by the pleadings.”
Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077,
1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Here, the materials submitted by the parties are
properly considered by the court.
Statute of Limitations
issue before the court is narrow. Plaintiffs concede that
they filed the instant complaint after the expiration of the
applicable statute of limitations, but argue that the statute
should be tolled on the basis of fraudulent concealment.
Under Minnesota law, a “defendant's fraudulent
concealment tolls the statute of limitations until the
plaintiff discovers or has reasonable opportunity to discover
the concealed facts.” Doe v. Order of St.
Benedict, 836 F.Supp.2d 872, 876 (D. Minn. 2011) (citing
Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp., 450 N.W.2d 913, 918
(Minn. 1990)). To establish fraudulent ...