Thorpe Design, Inc. v. Viking Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Pajak v. Rohm & Haas Co.

    387 F. Supp. 3d 138 (D. Mass. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting a bare "channels of commerce" argument for purposeful availment where plaintiff did not present any facts to "to support that [defendant] meaningfully and purposefully directed the allegedly defective [products] into Massachusetts (for example by designing [them] for or selling, advertising or marketing them to customers in Massachusetts)"

    Because the Complaint fails to give [defendant] fair notice of what product is at issue, the claims against it must be dismissed."); Campbell v. ABB Inc., No. 4:14CV01489 AGF, 2015 WL 1006388, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 5, 2015) ; Thorpe Design, Inc. v. Viking Corp., Case No. 15-cv-03324-EDL, 2015 WL 5440792, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2015) (dismissing claims for product liability and negligence because "[t]he complaint is overly vague as to what product is at issue"); Thompson v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-00602, 2014 WL 2874268, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2014). This Court agrees with the reasoning of the cited decisions.

  2. Del Castillo v. PMI Holdings N. Am. Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-CV-03435 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 13, 2016)   Cited 26 times
    Dismissing negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se claims where the complaint "lump[ed] together multiple defendants without identifying who is responsible for which acts"

    See Campbell v. ABB Inc., No. 4:14CV01489 AGF, 2015 WL 1006388, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 5, 2015) (dismissing complaint that "fails to identify any specific products manufactured by the moving Defendants, nor alleges in any fashion whatsoever the time, manner or degree of exposure [that the plaintiff] had to any products produced by the moving Defendants."); Thorpe Design, Inc. v. Viking Corp., No. 15-CV-03324-EDL, 2015 WL 5440792, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2015) (granting motion to dismiss product liability and negligence claims where "the complaint is overly vague as to what product is at issue."); Thompson v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-00602, 2014 WL 2874268, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2014) ("At a minimum, the district courts have required allegations that the defendant manufactured the product, that the product was used by the plaintiff, that the product failed while being used by the plaintiff, and that the portion of the product that failed could be identified and is so identified in the complaint.").