KUHAR et al v. PETZL COMPANY et al, No. 1:2016cv00395 - Document 352 (D.N.J. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION adopting Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/19/2019. (tf, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
KUHAR et al v. PETZL COMPANY et al Doc. 352 tDocket Items 184, 186, 193, 326, 338] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY V NICHOLAS KUHAR, et al., HONORZ2BLE RENEE MARIE BUMB Plaintiffs, v. No. PETZL COMPANY, et al., d/b/a PETZEL; MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendants. 1. This matter comes before Recommendation Civil Action 16-395 (RMB/JS) of the Honorable Judge entered October 21, 2019 the Joel Court upon the Schneider, [Docket Item 338] , Report and U.S. Magistrate which recommended that the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Bailey’s Corporation, Uintah Fastener & Supply, Petzl Corporation and Petzl America, and and by Brighton [Docket Items 184, and that summary defendants. 186, 193 judgment Plaintiffs Report and Recommendation objections were Best, Inc. and 326] be filed entered Porteous favor in objections [Docket Item 344] Petzl America, Porteous Fastener Co. Co. be granted in their entirety to of all Judge aforenamed Schneider’s and responses to those filed by Defendants Bailey’s Fastener & Supply, Fastener Corporation, and by Brighton Best, [Docket Items 347, 349, 350, Uintah Inc. and 351] Dockets.Justia.com 2. Factual Procedural and Background. The factual and procedural background of this case has been detailed in numerous prior Opinions Judge Schneider. 3921145, at by , Item Honorable Kuhar 2-3; Opinion only Order 269]; be [Docket repeated Petzl 19, Jerome Co., 2016) 3. No. Simandle 16-395, (Simandle, [Docket Item 234] , and by 2016 WL Opinion J.) ; 3-16; Memorandum [Docket Item 257]; Memorandum Opinion and Order Memorandum Memorandum Opinion and Order and v. July (D.N.J. Opinion and Order [Docket late (See *l.2 [Docket Item 84] the Item [Docket Item 277]; [Docket Item 324] ; Memorandum Opinion 325].) herein Opinion Therefore, insofar as it such is background necessary shall for the disposition of the present issue. 3. Standard of Review. The Third Circuit has reiterated that [w]here a party files [Federal] Rule [of Civil 72 objections to Procedure] [a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation], a district “make de novo court is required to a determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1). The [district] court is not required to conduct a de novo evidentiary hearing as part of that determination. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674, 100 S. (exploring Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed.2d 424 (1980) the legislative intent behind Section 636 and concluding that de novo hearings are not its “sound required) Rather, it may use in making its judicial discretion” determinations. Id. at 676, 100 5. Ct. 2406, see also D.N.J. Local Civ. R. 72.1(c) (2) (A consider the record district “may judge . 2 recently developed before the Magistrate Judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record.”) Ezekwo v. Quirk, No. 18-2061, 9, 2019) “The district . at *2 (3d Cir. Sept. reject, or modify the further evidence; or return the 2019 WL 4257015, judge may accept, recommended disposition; receive matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (3). 4. Discussion. While Plaintiffs failed to clearly enumerate their objections to Judge Schneider’s Report and Recommendation, the Court had identified three distinct claims made in Plaintiffs’ brief: that (1) product at requires issue expert determined testimony Judge a (2) Plaintiffs order product defect test, to and incorrectly determined that complex testimony, that in is Schneider that were pursue (3) instrumentality a Judge Schneider required claim and under to therefore incorrectly produce the the expert indeterminate that Judge Schneider inappropriately “failed to consider the failure to warn claim made by plaintiff Es] because it was ‘introduced for the first time in his reply brief.’” (See Pls.’ Obj. [Docket Item 344].) The Court shall address each of these three issues in turn. 5. Complex Instrumentality. Judge Schneider was incorrect issue was this a Plaintiffs assert that in determining that the product at complex instrumentality. issue has first (See id. at 2-4.) already been determined by the Court. 3 However, On October 15, 2019, Judge Schneider issued a separate Report and Recommendation that found both the bolt and the “micrograb” device containing the bolt and Recommendation were complex instrumentalities. Item 337], [Docket No 8-14.) (See Report objections were filed with regard to that Report and Recommendation and, on October 31, 2019, the Court adopted that Report and Recommendation in full. (See Order [Docket determined that Item 343] .) both the Therefore, bolt and the the Court “micrograb” has already are complex instrumentalities for the purposes of the present case. Plaintiffs have not sought reconsideration presented any basis of that holding, for such reconsideration. As nor such, have they the Court shall not alter Judge Schneider’s reasoning or holding with respect to this issue in the present Report and Recommendation. 6. Plaintiffs next assert that Judge Schneider incorrectly determined testimony product that in order defect Plaintiffs Plaintiffs to test. argue understand that the pursue a bolt required claim a Pls.’ (See that were Obj. reasonable and Recommendation indeterminate product jury contained in the undertook defect test specific facts of the present case. [Docket Item 338], under 13-16.) Judge 4 Item could and be 344], 4-5.) expected to could not Judge Schneider’s thorough how expert indeterminate “micrograb” (See id.) a produce the [Docket have broken but for a product defect. Report to it analysis of the relates to the (See Report and Recommendation Schneider found that expert testimony is required for Plaintiffs to succeed under this theory because “the jury has to understand the intricacies of metallurgy, engineering, and other complex scientific principles not common to the layperson.” at (Id. 15.) Additionally, Judge Schneider found that the broken bolt had been in regular use for seven years prior to it breaking, therefore a jury could not simply conclude any relevant product defect existed at the time of sale. that (Id. at 15-16.) Additionally, the bolt in question was not even found until three or four months after the bolt allegedly broke, left outdoors, at exposed to the elements for that whole time. Plaintiffs’ 16.) having been objections do not address any (Id. these of findings, nor do they provide the Court with any reason to disturb these findings or Judge Schneider’s ultimate conclusion that the intricacies of this case require jury in understanding the expert testimony to assist the impact of the factors described above. (See generally Pls.’ Obj. [Docket Item 344].) The Court finds that Judge and Recommendation fairly analyzes Schneider’s complexities of Report this case and the numerous reasons that a the jury would require expert testimony in order to understand the nexus of any defect such, the holding alleged to be exhibited by the bolt Court with shall respect not to alter this Judge issue Recommendation. 5 in in this case. Schneider’s the reasoning present Report As or and 7. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Judge Schneider inappropriately “failed to consider the failure to warn claim made by plaintiff[s], because it was his reply brief.’” (See Pis.’ ‘introduced for the first time in Obj. [Docket Item 344] , 6.) However, notwithstanding Judge Schneider’s acknowledgement that Plaintiffs’ counsel claim admitted on the was first Recommendation Plaintiffs’ made clearly failure record that to in then warn a Plaintiffs’ reply goes on claim failure brief, and take any [Docket Item issue with Judge Plaintiffs’ 338] , 17-24.) Schneider’s failure to warn claim, the nevertheless granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Recommendation Report the analyze to As analysis merits and of recommends (See Report and Plaintiffs of to warn do the merits not of the Court shall not alter Judge Schneider’s reasoning or holding with respect to this issue in the present Report and Recommendation. 6 8. adopt 338] Conclusion. Judge in its Defendants For Schneider’s entirety the foregoing Report and and enter Corporation and Petzl America, Fastener Co. the Recommendation summary Bailey’s Corporation, reasons, judgment Court will [Docket Item on behalf Uintah Fastener & Supply, and Brighton Best, Petzl Inc. and Porteous The accompanying Order will be entered. 2/ Date REN’ RIE 3UMB United States District Judge 7 of
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
