United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
G.
MURRAY SNOW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Marco Crane & Rigging
Co.'s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Doc. 94); (2) Defendants' Greenfield
Products LLC (“Defendant Greenfield”) and Mi-Jack
Products, Inc. (“Defendant Mi-Jack”) Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 95); and (3) Plaintiff's
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 98). For the following reasons,
the Court denies both Plaintiff's and Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and grants
Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.[1]
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
provides rigging services to customers throughout Arizona and
Southern California. Defendant Greenfield manufactures,
distributes, and sells boom dollies and other related
products. This action arises out of a crane accident that
occurred while the Plaintiff's crane was attached to a
boom dolly manufactured and sold to Plaintiff by Defendant
Greenfield.
Plaintiff
purchased a boom dolly from Defendant Greenfield in October
2014 for use with a specific crane. Upon receipt of the boom
dolly, Plaintiff was unable to put the product to its
intended use. Plaintiff claims the boom dolly had
“improper tower lug placement and tracking issues,
which prevented [Plaintiff] from using the” boom dolly
with the intended crane. (Doc. 93 at 3.) Plaintiff asserts
that the alleged defects rendered the boom dolly unstable and
unsafe to operate on roadways.
Plaintiff
notified Defendant Greenfield of the lug placement issue in
January 2015. An employee of Defendant Mi-Jack[2] provided
Plaintiff with instructions to resolve the issue. Plaintiff
was able to modify the boom dolly in accordance with the
instructions to resolve the improper lug placement.
Plaintiff, however, further asserts that the boom dolly
continued to experience tracking issues even after the lug
placement was resolved. The tracking issues caused the boom
dolly to “sway considerably during transport, at normal
highway speed limits.” (Doc. 93 at 5.)
Plaintiff
reported the tracking issues to Defendant Greenfield in April
2015. Defendant Greenfield modified the boom dolly. After
Defendant Greenfield's modifications, Plaintiff began
using the boom dolly in its operations until the boom dolly
was involved in an accident in December 2016. Plaintiff
claims the accident was a result of the defectively designed
boom dolly.
Plaintiff
brought this action in June 2017 alleging Strict Products
Liability, Negligence, and Breach of Warranties. Plaintiff
now moves for Partial Summary Judgment on its claim for
Strict Liability with respect to the pre-accident repair
costs it incurred. Defendant concurrently moves for Partial
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's alleged damages for
post-accident repairs and cleanup. Lastly, Plaintiff moves
for sanctions to be awarded for Defendants' failure to
participate in good faith in a court ordered settlement
conference.
DISCUSSION
I.
Motions for Partial Summary Judgment
The
purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose
of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment
is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Only disputes over facts that might
affect the outcome of the suit will preclude the entry of
summary judgment, and the disputed evidence must be
“such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
“[A]
party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion and identifying those portions of [the record]
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
Parties opposing summary judgment are required to
“cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the
record” establishing a genuine dispute or “show[
] that the materials cited do not establish the absence . . .
of a genuine dispute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
“[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is
sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury
to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely
colorable or if not significantly probative, summary judgment
may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50
(internal citations omitted).
a.
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Plaintiff
moves for a very limited partial summary judgment as to its
strict liability claim. In bringing this action, Plaintiff
pled that Defendant should be held strictly liable for the
damage that resulted when the boom dolly malfunctioned and
caused Plaintiff's crane to turn over. Plaintiff,
however, concedes in its motion that the cause of the
accident is a disputed issue of material fact. Thus,
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its strict products
liability claim only with respect to unspecified costs it
...