United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
E. Payne Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on HANKOOK TIRE COMPANY LIMITED
AND HANKOOK TIRE AMERICA CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 331). For the following reasons, the motion will be
products liability action, Robert Benedict sues Hankook Tire
Company Limited ("HTCL") and Hankook Tire America
Corporation ("HTAC") for the production and
distribution of an allegedly defective tire. Defendants seek
dismissal of Benedict's Second Amended Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
detailed overview of the facts of this case appears in the
Court's Memorandum Opinions resolving Benedict's and
Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 341,
343) . In short, however, this action involves a
single-vehicle accident that occurred when the front right
tire (the "subject tire") of a cement truck driven
by Benedict suffered a tread separation and the truck
thereafter collided with an embankment on the side of the
road. The subject tire was a Hankook Aurora THO8 Radial
425/65 R22.5 manufactured by HTCL in South Korea in 2005 and
distributed in the United States by HTAC.
initially asserted three claims: (1) products liability
negligence (including manufacturing defect, design defect,
and failure to warn); (2) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; and (3) breach of the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose. First Am. Compl. 5-11. He
is now pursuing only a negligent manufacturing claim against
HTCL and an implied warranty of merchantability claim against
HTCL and HTAC. Second Am. Compl. 4, 6.
October 2017, both sides moved for summary judgment. Benedict
sought partial summary judgment to bar Defendants'
contributory negligence defense. Defendants sought summary
judgment as to Benedict's active claims. The Court ruled
on these motions during a hearing held on November 20, 2017,
Nov. 20, 2017 Hr'g Tr. 152, and subsequently issued an
ORDER (ECF No. 221) and Memorandum Opinions (ECF Nos. 341,
343) formalizing its decisions.
deciding these motions, the Court directed Benedict to file a
Second Amended Complaint containing only his active claims.
Nov. 20, 2017 Hr'g Tr. 162-63; ORDER (ECF No. 209).
Benedict filed his Second Amended Complaint on December 29,
2017. Defendants then filed the motion to dismiss that is the
subject of this Opinion.
Court has described the legal standard applicable to motions
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in the following way:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) permits a party to move for
dismissal of a claim if the complaint fails "to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8
(a) (2) requires "a short and plain statement of the
claim" showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
"To 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)).
Courts should assume the veracity of all well-pleaded
allegations in the Complaint, and should deny a motion to
dismiss where those well-pleaded allegations state a
plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is
"plausible" when the plaintiff pleads facts
sufficient to allow the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged
misconduct. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. The court
should grant a motion to dismiss, however, where the
allegations are nothing more than legal ...