Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 04-552
March 18, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs, David G. Marino and Susan Marino, filed suit against Defendants Case LLC (improperly designated as Case Corp.) ("Case") and the Gates Rubber Company ("Gates"), for personal injuries suffered by David Marino while using a "Maxi — Sneaker machine," which Case manufactured using hydraulic hoses produced by Gates. Plaintiff alleges negligence and breach of warranty against both Defendants. Defendant, Case now petitions the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' cause of action because the statute of limitations has run on their claims.
However, because the record does not provide the Court with any guidance on which states' law to apply, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be Denied, without prejudice.
Discussion
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges negligence and breach of implied and express warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose against defendants Case and Gates. However, based upon a careful review of the record, the Court cannot decide this motion because it cannot determine which state's statute of limitations to apply. Although both parties assume that Pennsylvania law applies, there are no allegations in the pleadings to warrant such an assumption.
Under Pennsylvania law, resolution of choice of law issues requires a two step process. First, it must be determined if a conflict of law exists. Scirex Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 313 F.3d 841, 847 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Keystone Aerial Surveys. Inc. v. Pennsylvania Property Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 777 A.2d 84, 94 ( Pa. Super. 2001)). If no conflict exists, Pennsylvania law may be applied. Id. If a conflict does exist, a court must "analyze the governmental interests underlying the issue and determine which state has the greater interest in the application of its law." Keystone Aerial Surveys. Inc., 777 A.2d at 94. This analysis has been referred to as a "flexible approach," which favors the law of the jurisdiction "`having the most interest in the problem.'"Griffith v. United Air Lines. Inc., 203 A.2d 796, 805-806 (Pa. 1964) (quoting Babcock v. Jackson. 191 N.E.2d 279, 283 (N.Y. 1963)). It requires that courts not merely count the contacts a state has with an injury, but consider them qualitatively. Normann v. Johns — Manville Corp., 593 A.2d 890, 893 (Pa.Super. 1991) (citing Cipolla v. Shaposka, 267 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1970)).
In a diversity cause of action, a district court must "apply the choice of law rules of the forum state in determining which state's law will be applied to the substantive issues before it." Shuder v. McDonald's Corp., 859 F.2d 266, 269 (3d Cir. 1988).
The record in the present case shows that Plaintiffs are currently residents of New Jersey. (Complaint ¶ 1.) Case and Gates are corporations with mailing addresses for service of process located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, wherein both corporations regularly and continuously conduct business. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) However, completely devoid from the record is any indication of what state Plaintiff, David Marino, resided in at the time of his injury and in which state he sustained his injury. The Complaint merely states that:
On or about October 2, 2001, plaintiff David G. Marino was using a Maxi — Sneaker machine manufactured by Case when suddenly and without warning the Maxi — Sneaker machine malfunctioned and caused plaintiff to sustain severe and disabling injuries . . .
(Id. ¶ 4.).
Based upon this allegation, Plaintiff, David Marino, could have resided and worked in any of the fifty states at the time of his injury. Consequently, the Court cannot determine which states' interests are at stake in this litigation. It therefore, cannot determine whether or not a conflict of law exists and if a conflict does exist, the Court cannot qualitatively consider the states' contacts to Plaintiffs' cause of action. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss must be denied. However, the denial will be without prejudice, granting Defendant leave to raise these issues once there are facts of record sufficient to decide the issue.
Plaintiffs' state of residency at the time of Plaintiff, David Marino's, injury and the situs of that injury are relevant factors in determining a choice of law issue. In a products liability case decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the court held New Jersey law to be appropriate even though the defendant manufacturers were Pennsylvania corporations. Giovanetti v. Johns — Manville Corp., 539 A.2d 871 (Pa.Super. 1988). The Court found that New Jersey's interests trumped those of Pennsylvania because the plaintiff's exposure to defendants' product occurred primarily while he resided and worked in New Jersey. Id. at 873.
An appropriate Order follows.