United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Columbus TAYLOR, Plaintiff,

v.

Kenneth DUPREE and Landstar Inway, Inc., Defendants.

Civil No. 1:23-CV-00298

|

Signed February 1, 2024

Attorneys and Law Firms

Eugene Gitman, Law Offices of Eugene Gitman, Feasterville, PA, Gary Schafkopf, Schafkopf Law, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Louis Anthony DiJiacomo, Matthew B. Weisberg, Weisberg Law, Morton, PA, for Plaintiff.

John T. Pion, Pion Nerone Girman Winslow & Smith, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Joshua D. Leaver, Pion Nerone Girman Winslow & Smith, PC, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

JENNIFER P. WILSON, United States District Judge

*1 Before the court is a motion to dismiss and strike the punitive damages claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f), filed by Defendants Kenneth Dupree (“Dupree”) and Landstar Inway, Inc. (“Landstar”). (Doc. 18.) The first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff Columbus Taylor (“Taylor”) suffered injuries due to Defendants’ negligence in a crash between two tractor trailers. (Doc. 16.) The court finds that it is premature and inappropriate at this stage to dismiss the punitive damages. The court also finds that Taylor has sufficiently pleaded enough facts to survive the motion to strike. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

Factual Background and Procedural History

The first amended complaint alleges that, on February 1, 2021, Taylor was travelling north on Interstate 81 (“81”)¹ in Franklin County, Pennsylvania in a red tractor trailer. (Doc. 16, ¶¶ 8, 10.) Dupree was travelling north in the same area in a gold tractor trailer. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11.) At the time the parties were travelling, the road was “covered in windblown snow.” (Id. ¶ 13.) At all times, Dupree was in front of Taylor. (Id. ¶ 12.) At some point, Dupree lost control of his tractor trailer and eventually became perpendicular to the highway, blocking all northbound lanes. (Id. ¶ 14.) In order to avoid hitting a passenger vehicle on his left, Taylor collided with Dupree, ultimately sustaining “serious, disabling and permanent physical injuries[.]” (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16.)

The first amended complaint alleges that “Dupree breached his … duties by operating [his tractor trailer] in a careless, reckless, and unsafe manner, without abiding all traffic regulations and without consideration for the conditions of the road, including the adverse weather conditions[.]” (Id. ¶ 19.) The complaint then goes on to list actions that Dupree either failed to do or did recklessly, including recklessly violating traffic laws, driving while distracted, in a fatigued condition, at an unsafe speed, and at unsafe distances from other vehicles. (Id.) Count I alleges negligence against Dupree, Count II alleges vicarious liability against Landstar, and Count III alleges negligence against Landstar. (Id. ¶¶ 17–38.) The first amended complaint requests compensatory and punitive damages.

Landstar and Dupree removed this action from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on February 21, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 27, 2023. (Doc. 2.) Taylor then filed the operative first amended complaint on May 18, 2023, after a stipulation by the parties to extend the amount of time to do so. (Docs. 13, 16.) Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss and strike on June 1, 2023. (Doc. 18.) The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.

Jurisdiction

*2 This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties have complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.² Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all events occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Standard of Review

A. Motion to Dismiss

In order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Conclusory allegations of liability are insufficient” to survive a motion to dismiss. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 92 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79). To determine whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a court identifies “the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim for relief,” disregards the allegations “that are no more than conclusions and thus not entitled to the assumption of truth,” and determines whether the remaining factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012).

B. Motion to Strike

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a party can move a district court to “strike from a pleading … any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” This rule is “designed to reinforce the requirement in Rule 8 … that pleadings be simple, concise, and direct.” 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1380 (3d ed. 2020 update). To that end, the purpose of any motion to strike should be to “clean up the pleadings, streamline litigation, and avoid the unnecessary forays into immaterial matters.” United States v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., 871 F. Supp. 2d 433, 460 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).

Motions to strike should not be used to persuade a court to determine disputed questions of law. See Tonka Corp. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 836 F. Supp. 200, 218 (D.N.J. 1993) (citations omitted). They also “may not serve as an avenue to procure the dismissal of all or part of a complaint.” Davila v. N. Reg’l Joint Police Bd., 979 F. Supp. 2d 612, 624 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2013), vacated in part on reconsideration, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102143 (July 28, 2014) (citing Giles v. Phelan, Hallinan & Schmieg, L.L.P., 901 F. Supp. 2d 509, 530–31 (D.N.J. 2012)).

The burden rests with the moving party to show that the challenged matter should be stricken. In re Ry. Indus. Emp. No-Poach Antitrust Litig., 395 F. Supp. 3d 464, 496 (W.D. Pa. 2019). Thus, the movant must demonstrate that the matter falls within one of the categories listed in Rule 12(f). “Immaterial” matter is that which “has no essential or important relationship to [any] claim[s] for relief.” Wagner v. Holtzapple, 101 F. Supp. 3d 462, 488 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Del. Health Care, Inc. v. MCD Holding Co., 893 F. Supp. 1279 (D. Del. 1995)). “Impertinent” matter consists of “statements that do not pertain, and are not necessary, to the issues in question.” Id. (citation omitted). And “scandalous” matter is that which “casts a derogatory light on someone, uses repulsive language, or detracts from the dignity of the court.” Id. (citing Carone v. Whalen, 121 F.R.D. 231, 232 (M.D. Pa. 1988)).

Discussion

*3 Defendants argue that Taylor has only provided conclusory allegations and boilerplate legal conclusions to support the allegation that Dupree and Landstar acted with the requisite mental state to warrant punitive damages. (Doc. 19, p. 12.)³ Taylor responds that, under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must only generally aver a defendant’s state of mind because such evidence is most commonly available after discovery has been completed, and he has alleged sufficient facts to plausibly support reckless conduct. (Doc. 21, p. 8.)

In Pennsylvania, punitive damages are available as a remedy in negligence actions where “(1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that (2) he acted, or failed to act, as the case may be, in conscious disregard of that risk.” See Hutchison ex rel. Hutchison v. Luddy, 582 Pa. 114, 870 A.2d 766, 772–73 (Pa. 2005).⁴ This remedy is only available “in cases where the defendant’s actions are so outrageous as to demonstrate willful, wanton or reckless conduct.” Id. at 770.

The court notes that it is rare to dismiss a claim for punitive damages in motor vehicle accident cases at the outset of litigation. See, e.g., Alexander v. W. Express, No. 1:19-CV-1456, 2019 WL 6339907, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-1456, 2019 WL 6327688 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2019). Further, courts have generally deemed these motions to dismiss as premature and inappropriate where the complaint alleges reckless conduct. See, e.g., Harvell v. Brumberger, No. 3:19-cv-2124, 2020 WL 6947693, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2020).

Here, Taylor alleges recklessness, which is generally sufficient to avoid dismissal at this stage. (Doc. 16, ¶ 19.) Further, because an individual’s state of mind usually determines whether an award of punitive damages is warranted, it would be premature to dismiss a punitive damages claim at the outset of litigation. See Harvell, 2020 WL 6947693 at *8 (“[B]ecause the question of whether punitive damages are proper often turns on the defendants’ state of mind, this question frequently cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone but must await the development of a full factual record at trial.”) (citing In re Lemington Home for the Aged, 777 F.3d 620, 631 (3d Cir. 2015)). For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim will be denied.

On the motion to strike, Defendants argue that facts alleging recklessness are immaterial and should be stricken because the first amended complaint sounds in negligence. (Doc. 19, pp. 14, 15.) Taylor does not respond to the motion to strike.

A defendant acts recklessly when “his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another [and] such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.” Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 584 Pa. 179, 883 A.2d 439, 445 (Pa. 2005). Taylor alleges Dupree failed to maintain control of his tractor trailer, properly manage space around him, and observe the existing traffic and weather conditions. (Doc. 16, ¶19.) Taylor also alleges that Dupree recklessly operated the tractor trailer while distracted, fatigued, at an unsafe speed, and at unsafe distances comparatively to other vehicles. (Id.) Although not argued by Taylor, these allegations are not immaterial, but rather are included to support the allegation of reckless behavior of Dupree. Therefore, the court will deny the motion to strike references to recklessness.

Conclusion

*4 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss and strike will be denied. (Doc. 18.) An order follows.

All Citations

Footnotes

1. The court notes that the first amended complaint consistently refers to the road the parties were traveling as “Route 181.” However, while there is a Route 181 in York County, PA, there is no Route 181 in Franklin County, PA. There is an Interstate 81, which may be referred to as “I81” for short. The court will assume that the reference to “181” was a typographical error and that the events alleged occurred on Interstate 81.  
2. Taylor is a citizen of Mississippi, Dupree is a citizen of Louisiana, and Landstar is a business incorporated and with a principal place of business in Delaware. (Doc. 16, ¶¶ 4–6.)
3. For ease of reference, the court utilizes the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.  
4. Because the accident occurred in Pennsylvania, the court applies Pennsylvania law.  

End of Document  

© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.  

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Francisco PAGAN, Plaintiff,

v.

Richard D. DENT, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 21-cv-01621

|

Signed January 30, 2024

Attorneys and Law Firms

James L. DeCinti, Joshua D. Leaver, Pion, Nerone, Girman, Winslow & Smith PC, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR., United States Magistrate Judge

*1 This diversity action arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on January 31, 2021, on Interstate 81 in Hazle Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The case is assigned to us upon the consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The matter is now before us on the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. (Doc. 39)¹. This motion is fully briefed. (Doc. 42; Doc. 44; Doc. 46). We heard oral argument on the motion on September 7, 2023. The matter is now ripe for decision. For the reasons set forth herein, we will deny the motion.

I. Statement of Facts

On January 31, 2021, at approximately 9:00 p.m., defendant Richard D. Dent, a holder of a valid Commercial Driver’s License, was operating a tractor trailer for defendant P&S Transportation, Inc., and defendant P&S Transportation, LLC, d/b/a P&S Transportation (collectively “P&S”) on Interstate 81 near Exit 143, Hazle Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. It was snowing, and Interstate 81 was covered with about eight inches of snow. Travel restrictions limited speed to 45 miles per hour, and tractors were prohibited from towing lightly loaded open trailers. Dent was carrying a load that weighed approximately 60,000 lbs. At that time, and due to the inclement weather, the plaintiffs were sitting inside their disabled vehicle which was parked off the road within the triangle shaped section immediately before the exit ramp sign. However, plaintiff Markham Pagan testified that the front wheels of his vehicle were “three feet onto the road.” (Doc. 39-7, at 172.) Nonetheless, a PennDOT highway foreman, James P. Lewis, observed the plaintiffs’ vehicle before the accident and said that the plaintiffs’ vehicle was completely off the roadway. (Doc. 44-6, at 6, 9.)

Dent was operating the tractor–trailer at about 53 mph when he lost control of the vehicle as he attempted to change lanes, causing it to jackknife and land on top of the plaintiffs’ vehicle. Dent, a lifelong resident of Louisiana, testified that he had some training on space management, visual surroundings, ice and snow, and speed reduction on ice and snow. But he also testified that he did not have any training in extreme driving conditions at the time of the accident. (Doc. 44-8, at 8.)

II. Legal Standards

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment should be granted only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” only if it might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute of material fact is “genuine” only if the evidence “is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In deciding a summary judgment motion, all inferences “should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and where the non-moving party’s evidence contradicts the movant’s, then the non-movant’s must be taken as true.” Pastore v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 24 F.3d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 1994).

*2 The party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion” and demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant makes such a showing, the non-movant must set forth specific facts, supported by the record, demonstrating that “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.

III. Discussion

Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages apply only when the “defendant’s actions are so outrageous as to demonstrate willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.” Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766, 770 (Pa. 2005) (quoting Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 747 (Pa. 1984)). In Pennsylvania, punitive damages are “an extreme remedy” available in the most exceptional matters.” Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 883 A.2d 439, 445 (Pa. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). This type of damage is not compensatory in nature, but is meant “to heap an additional punishment on the defendant who is found to have acted in a fashion which is particularly egregious.” Id. at 446. In Pennsylvania, a punitive damages claim must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that (1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm that the plaintiff was exposed to, and (2) the defendant acted or failed to act in conscious disregard of that risk. Hutchison 870 A.2d 766, 772 (2005). “[T]he determination of whether an individual was reckless inherently involves a fact-intensive inquiry.” Mulholland v. Gonzalez, No. 08-3901, 2008 WL 5273588, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2008).

Although “ordinary negligence will not support an award of punitive damages, ‘punitive damages are appropriate for torts sounding in negligence when the conduct goes beyond mere negligence and into the realm of behavior which is willful, malicious, or so careless as to indicate wanton disregard for the rights of the parties injured.’ ” Young v. Westfall, No. 06-CV-2325, 2007 WL 675182, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2007) (citing Hutchison, 870 A.2d at 770). In making such a determination, the state of mind of the actor is an essential consideration. Id. Further, there is not a general proscription against pursuing damages in the context of a negligent supervision claim, if the facts allow for it. Hutchison, 870 A.2d at 773.

Here, the defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of recklessness and punitive damages because the plaintiffs have failed to cite any facts of record which support or lead to a reasonable inference that the defendants had a subjective appreciation and chose to ignore it. The plaintiffs contend that the motion should be denied because the evidence demonstrates that defendant Dent was aware of the approaching winter storm as he received weather alerts all week, and that, in snow and ice conditions, he had been trained to pull over and find a place to park when he was not under any time restraints for the delivery of his load, as here. Further, PennDOT issued a “Tier 1” warning, which prohibited certain vehicles from operating on the interstate, and which reduced the speed limit to 45 mph. (Doc. 44-5, at 3-6.)

As to Dent’s speed, the defendants concede that PennDOT reduced the speed limit to 45 mph because of the weather conditions, but they argue that there is no evidence that Dent saw those warnings, and that if he had, he was only exceeding the speed limit by 8 mph. (Doc. 42, at 23.) The plaintiffs point to Dent’s deposition testimony where he, too, conceded that he was traveling in excess of the speed limit immediately before the accident. (Doc. 44-8, at 35.) Further, the plaintiffs proffered the expert testimony of Walter A. Guntharp who opined that, given the conditions that existed at the time of the accident, if Dent traveled at 30 mph or less, he would have had more time and distance to make a gradual movement that would have allowed him to maintain control of his vehicle. (Doc. 44-12, at 8-9.)

*3 Next, the defendants contend that Dent was neither fatigued nor distracted at the time of the accident. (Doc. 42, at 24.) Further, they maintain that Dent tried to stop at an earlier truck stop, but it was full. (Id.) A review of the dashcam video provided by counsel demonstrates that Dent was driving with one hand while holding a soda bottle in his other hand. (Doc. 44-7.) The video shows it was snowing and that there may have been an ice build-up on a portion of the windows. (Id.) Based upon Dent’s deposition testimony, the plaintiffs posit that Dent was running up against his 11-hour hours-of-service limitations because, had the accident not happened, he would have ended his travel for the day within the next five minutes after that. (Doc. 44-8, at 32.) In addition, the plaintiffs’ expert, Christopher Shapley, opined that Dent’s plan to travel to exit 145 before stopping for the day required him to average 50 mph to avoid violating the 11-hour limit imposed on his hours of driving. (Doc. 44-10, at 2.)

Next, P&S argues that there is no evidence it was reckless because it told Dent to get to a safe place if he encountered bad weather, it provided its drivers with continuing training, and it monitored their hours of service. In their opposition to the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, the plaintiffs argue that the applicable standard of care for operation of a commercial tractor–trailer truck, such as that driven by Dent, is derived from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The plaintiffs have proffered expert witness evidence that, based on weather conditions at the time of the vehicular collision at issue here: Dent failed to reduce his speed to a reasonable degree in response to the adverse weather conditions; that his speed was in excess of the Tier 1 snow emergency requirements set by PennDOT and violated the training set forth in Section 2 of the CDL manual; Dent’s excessive speed and failure to find a safe location to park his tractor–trailer violated the adverse weather conditions requirements of Part 392.14 of the FMCSRs; Dent could not safely apply his breaks because he was travelling at or in excess of 50 mph; Dent failed to use both hands to steer because he was holding a soda in one of his hands; Dent should have stopped well before entering into the storm area as he had advance notice of the storm; and Dent was operating in excess of his hours of service. (Doc. 44-12, at 7.)

The plaintiffs have further proffered evidence that P&S: failed to provide Dent with a road test; failed to provide Dent with any training on driving in adverse weather conditions until after the crash; had no written policies regarding dispatching drivers into areas that were experiencing adverse weather conditions; took no steps to delay the load or require Dent to stop until the storm passed; and failed to properly monitor Dent’s logs and discover his speeding violations. (Id.) The plaintiffs seek punitive damages from the employer directly, based on its purportedly wanton failure to train or supervise Dent with respect to the safe operation of his vehicle, failure to monitor Dent’s logs and discover that he was speeding on a regular basis, failure to adjust load dispatch and reschedule freight for transport, and failure to control Dent’s activities and require that he wait until the storm had passed before entering into the area that was affected by it. (Id. at 15.)

Based upon our review of the motion papers and the evidence proffered by the parties in support and opposition to the motion, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact precluding a finding of summary judgment. In particular, we find that, viewing the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, a reasonable jury could find that Dent operated his vehicle in a reckless manner, and that P&S exhibited reckless disregard in its failure to train and supervise Dent. Thus, the motion will be denied.

*4 An appropriate order follows.

All Citations

Footnotes

1. By separate order (Doc. 52), we granted the unopposed motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Blair Logistics, LLC (Doc. 38), and we dismissed it as a defendant.  

End of Document

© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.