Henao v. Smiths Detection, Inc. ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JAIME HENAO,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 18-2564 (TJK)
SMITHS DETECTION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jaime Henao, a passerby, stopped to help a delivery truck driver unload a large
x-ray scanner—only to have the scanner fall off the truck and injure him. Almost three years
later, he sued several parties, including the scanner’s manufacturer and two companies
purportedly delivering it that unlucky day. He seeks recovery under various theories of
negligence. Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by the three remaining defendants
named in his amended complaint. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the
motions and dismiss the amended complaint, but not the action.
I. Background
For purposes of the instant motions, the Court presumes the truth of the allegations in the
amended complaint. Defendant Smiths Detection, Inc., (“Smiths”) manufactures x-ray scanners
used for building security. ECF No. 19 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 1. 1 Around December 2015, Smiths
sold a scanner to a customer in the District of Columbia and arranged for its delivery. Id. ¶ 2.
The scanner weighed almost 900 pounds. Id. ¶ 1. Smiths contracted Defendant CRST
1
Citations to factual allegations in the amended complaint begin with numbered paragraphs
starting on page three.
Specialized Transportation, Inc. (“CRST”) to arrange for the delivery of the scanner. Id. ¶ 4.
CRST, in turn, contracted with Defendant Valley Logistics, LLC (“Valley”) to make the
delivery. Id. ¶ 5. On December 7, 2015, Henao was walking near Columbus Circle N.E. when
he observed a delivery truck driver employed by either CRST or Valley struggling to unload the
scanner from his truck.2 Id. ¶¶ 12–13. Henao approached the driver to help. Id. As Henao
approached, the driver lost control of the scanner and it fell off the truck’s liftgate and onto
Henao, injuring him. Id.
In September 2018, Henao filed this action in the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia against Smiths and two other defendants purportedly responsible for the delivery of
the scanner—C. H. Robinson Transportation Company, Inc. (“CHRTC”) and C. H. Robinson
Company (“CHRC”). ECF No. 1-1. In his original complaint, Henao brought claims for
negligence, vicarious liability, negligent hiring, and negligence per se against each defendant. In
November 2018, CHRTC and CHRC removed this action to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction, ECF No. 1, and Smiths consented to removal, ECF No. 9.
On December 5, 2018, Henao moved for leave to file an amended complaint that named
CRST and Valley as defendants for the first time, alleging the same four negligence claims
against them. See ECF No. 14. That same day, the Court denied the motion without prejudice
for failure to comply with Local Rule 7(m), which requires, before filing any nondispositive
motion, counsel for the moving party to confer with opposing counsel in a good-faith effort to
determine whether there is any opposition to the relief sought. See Minute Order of December 5,
2019. On December 11, 2018, Henao filed a second motion for leave to amend that complied
2
Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains separate allegations that, “[a]t all times relevant to acts
and omission[s] on which this civil action is based,” the delivery driver was an employee of
CRST and Valley. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7–8.
2
with Local Rule 7(m), ECF No. 16, which the Court granted, ECF No. 19. The Court also
dismissed CHRTC and CHRC as parties to the action, in accordance with a stipulation of
voluntary dismissal signed by Henao’s counsel. ECF No. 18.
Smiths, CRST, and Valley now move to dismiss Henao’s amended complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Smiths contends that the claims against it should be
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 22. CRST and Valley argue
that Henao’s claims against them should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred or, in
the alternative, for failure to state a claim. ECF Nos. 24, 26. For the reasons explained below,
the Court will grant the motions.
II. Legal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” “A court considering such a motion presumes the factual allegations of the complaint
to be true and construes them liberally in the plaintiff’s favor.” Philogene v. District of
Columbia, 864 F. Supp. 2d 127, 133 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing United States v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
116 F. Supp. 2d 131, 135 (D.D.C. 2000)).
If “the allegations [in a complaint] show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.” Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 215 (2007). But a defendant “may raise a statute of limitations as an affirmative
defense via a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the facts that give rise to the defense are clear
from the face of the complaint.” Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Ark Union Station, Inc., 268
F. Supp. 3d 196, 203 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Mizell v. SunTrust Bank, 26 F. Supp. 3d 80, 85
(D.D.C. 2014)). “If no reasonable person could disagree on the date on which the cause of
3
action accrued, the court may dismiss a claim on statute of limitations grounds.” Id. at 204
(quoting DePippo v. Chertoff, 453 F. Supp. 2d 30, 33 (D.D.C. 2006)).
In addition, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief, in order to
give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Although “detailed factual allegations” are unnecessary, a
complaint must contain “a claim that is plausible on its face” that goes beyond “an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal citations and quotations omitted). That is, the factual allegations in the complaint
should allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements . . . do not suffice.” Id. And in deciding motions to dismiss, the
Court examines only those facts alleged in the complaint, see Tabb v. District of Columbia, 477
F. Supp. 2d 185, 187 (D.D.C. 2007), and need not consider facts alleged in later motions, see
Garabis v. Unknown Officers of Metro. Police, 820 F. Supp. 2d 32, 35–36 (D.D.C. 2011).
III. Analysis
A. Whether the Amended Complaint’s Claims Against CRST and Valley are
Barred by the Statute of Limitations
CRST and Valley argue that claims against them are time-barred. See ECF No. 24; ECF
No. 26. “When deciding state-law claims under diversity or supplemental jurisdiction, federal
courts apply the choice-of-law rules of the jurisdiction in which they sit.” Ideal Elec. Sec. Co. v.
Int’l Fid. Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 143, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a result, the law of the District of
Columbia governs the limitations period for Henao’s claims.
4
The D.C. Code sets a three-year limitations period for negligence actions. See D.C. Code
§ 12-301(8); see also Upshaw v. Progressive Ins. Co., 292 F. Supp. 3d 205, 210 (D.D.C. 2017).
This period begins to run on the date of the plaintiff’s injury. Upshaw, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 210.
Thus, the statute of limitations for Henao’s claims began to run on December 7, 2015 and
expired on December 7, 2018.3 But Henao did not successfully move for leave to amend his
complaint to add CRST and Valley as defendants until December 11, 2018. ECF No. 16. Thus,
Henao’s claims against CRST and Valley are untimely, and he concedes as much. 4 See ECF No.
30 at 4 (“Defendant Valley was added as an additional defendant to this matter after the statute
of limitations period had run . . . .”); ECF No. 31 at 4 (same).
Still, Henao contends that the Court may reach his claims because they “relate[] back” to
the original complaint. ECF No. 30 at 5; ECF No. 31 at 5. The relation back doctrine, codified
in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(“Relation Back of Amendments”), permits a party “to
correct a pleading error, by adding a new claim or new party, after the statutory limitations
period has expired.” Philogene, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 133 (citing United States v. Hicks, 283 F.3d
380, 387 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), a plaintiff may add claims against a newly
added party provided that they arise “out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or
attempted to be set out—in the original pleading,” and the party to be added “received such
notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits” and “knew or should
3
In his briefing, Henao argues that the relevant limitations period ended on December 6, 2018.
ECF No. 30 at 4; ECF No. 31 at 4. However, whether the limitations period expired on
December 6 or 7 is immaterial to the Court’s resolution of the motion.
4
The Court notes that Henao does not argue that the limitations period for his claims against
CRST and Valley should be equitably tolled because he unsuccessfully moved for leave to
amend his complaint on December 5, 2018.
5
have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the
proper party’s identity.”
As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “the evident purpose of the rule . . . is to avoid the
harsh consequences of a mistake that is neither prejudicial nor a surprise to the misnamed party.”
Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim, 107 F.3d 913, 919 (D.C. Cir. 1997). If, however, that newly added
party “legitimately believed that the limitations period had passed without any attempt to sue
him,” then Rule 15(c)(1)(C) does not save otherwise untimely claims. Krupski v. Costa Crociere
S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 550 (2010). For this reason, “[a] potential defendant who has not been
named in a lawsuit by the time the statute of limitations has run is entitled to repose—unless it is
or should be apparent to that person that he is the beneficiary of a mere slip of the pen . . . .”
Rendall-Speranza, 107 F.3d at 918.
Despite his contention that the relation back doctrine saves his claims, Henao fails to
show—as required by Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii)—that CRST or Valley knew, or should have known,
that they would have been named as defendants in this suit but for a mistake of identity. See
ECF Nos. 30, 31. Instead, he argues that his claims against CRST and Valley relate back to his
original complaint because “it is without a doubt” that they knew about the incident in December
2015 and thus “could have reasonably anticipated litigation based on the return of the Scanner to
[their] warehouse/facilities at or near the time of the incident at issue.” ECF No. 30 at 6; ECF
No. 31 at 6. But this allegation, even if true, comes up short. For claims against a new party to
“relate back,” the new defendant must have adequate “notice of the action,” as well as notice that
it would have been named as a defendant “but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s
identity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C) (emphasis added). Mere knowledge of the incident that
led to the action is insufficient. See Grigsby v. Johnson, No. 95-213 (TFH/DAR), 1996 WL
6
444052, at *5 (D.D.C. May 14, 1996); see also Aslandidis v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1067, 1076
(2d Cir. 1993) (“Rule 15(c) . . . require[s] notice of plaintiff’s cause of action, not simply notice
of the accident.”).5
Moreover, Henao has not shown that he added CRST and Valley as defendants because
of a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity,” much less that either defendant knew or
should have known of any such mistake. Rather, he claims to have discovered the identity of
CRST and Valley through an investigation shortly before the expiration of the limitations period,
months after the action was filed. ECF No. 30 at 5; ECF No. 31 at 5. But a plaintiff’s lack of
knowledge of the identity of the proper defendant is not “a mistake entitled to relation back.”
Grigsby, 1996 WL 444052, at *5 (citing Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 66 F.3d 466, 470
(2d Cir. 1995)); see also Gipson v. Wells Fargo Corp., 382 F. Supp. 2d 116, 119 (D.D.C. 2005).
Thus, Henao fails to establish that, within the limitations period, CRST and Valley knew or
should have known that they would have been named as defendants but for “a mere slip of the
pen.” Rendall-Speranza, 107 F.3d at 918.
For these reasons, Henao’s untimely claims against CRST and Valley do not relate back
to his original complaint. As a result, because the statute of limitations on those claims elapsed
before CRST and Valley were named as defendants, the Court will dismiss them as time-barred.
5
Henao also fails to show that CRST or Valley had “constructive notice” of the lawsuit, which
may be attributed to new defendant if, for instance, it is a closely related member of the same
corporate family as an original defendant sued by mistake. See Kubicki on behalf of Kubicki v.
Medtronic, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 3d 129, 165 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Krupski, 560 U.S. at 554–55);
Johnson v. Paragon Sys., Inc., 305 F. Supp. 3d 139, 146 (D.D.C. 2018). Even if CRST or Valley
“could have reasonably anticipated” a lawsuit based on their purported knowledge of the
incident, he cites no authority for the proposition that this would show constructive knowledge of
the suit itself.
7
B. Whether the Amended Complaint States a Claim Against Smiths
Smiths argues that claims against it should be dismissed because the amended complaint
fails to allege facts that adequately state a claim against it. In the amended complaint, Henao
pleads four theories liability against Smiths: (1) negligence for failing to ensure its product was
delivered safely, (2) vicarious liability for the actions of contractors that contributed to his injury,
(3) negligent hiring, and (4) negligence per se. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1430, 101104. Because it sits
in diversity, the Court must apply the District of Columbia’s substantive law. See Metz v. BAE
Sys. Tech. Sol. & Servs., Inc., 774 F.3d 18, 21 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The Court addresses each claim
in turn.
1. General Negligence
Under Count I, Henao seeks recovery against Smiths under a general negligence theory.
Am. Compl. ¶ 101. “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the
defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the
defendant’s acts proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury.” Smith v. United States, 157
F. Supp. 3d 32, 40 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Ferguson, 977 A.2d
375, 377 (D.C. 2008). In so doing, a plaintiff “must specify a negligent act and ‘characterize the
duty whose breach might have resulted in negligence liability.’” Id. (quoting District of
Columbia v. White, 442 A.2d 159, 162 (D.C. 1982)). And under District of Columbia law, “a
court’s examination of whether a duty exists [is] a ‘foreseeability of harm test’ that is
determined, in large part, by the nature of the relationship between the parties.” Hedgepeth v.
Whitman Walker Clinic, 22 A.3d 789, 794 (D.C. 2011) (citing Odemns v. District of Columbia,
930 A.2d 137, 143 (D.C. 2007)). In general, “there is only a minimal duty—if any—owed to a
party who is at arms’ length,” but “[o]nce the defendant enters into a relationship with the
8
plaintiff . . . a corresponding duty of care arises.” Id. Finally, in alleging a negligence claim,
“[t]he description of the duty cannot . . . ‘rest on mere conclusory assumptions.’” Smith, 157 F.
Supp. 3d at 40 (quoting Simms v. District of Columbia, 699 F. Supp. 2d 217, 227 (D.D.C. 2010)).
Smiths argues that Henao’s negligence claim must be dismissed because he fails to allege
the existence of a relationship between himself and Smiths sufficient to establish a legally-
enforceable duty. ECF No. 22-1 at 4. The Court agrees. Henao’s negligence claim against
Smiths hinges on two cursory allegations: (1) “[i]t is the duty of Defendant Smiths to make sure
that its equipment is delivered safely,” Am. Compl. ¶ 14, and (2) “Defendant Smiths breached its
duty by choosing not to make sure its equipment is delivered safely,” id. ¶ 23. But Henao does
not allege the existence of a relationship through which Smiths owed a duty to him. And he fails
to specify either a relevant standard of care or how Smiths deviated from that standard. Rather,
Henao merely repeats, in a conclusory fashion, that Smiths breached various duties it purportedly
owed to him, such as a duty “to tell delivery companies it hires that it takes no less than two
people to deliver the [s]canner,” id. ¶¶ 15, 24; and “to hire companies who are qualified to
deliver its equipment safely,” id. ¶¶ 16, 25. With no additional support for his allegations, the
Court cannot plausibly infer that Smiths is liable to Henao for negligence. The Court will thus
grant Smiths’ motion as to Count I.
2. Vicarious Liability
Under Count II, Henao alleges that Smiths is vicariously liable for the negligence of its
agents. Am. Compl. ¶ 102. Vicarious liability requires the existence of an agent-principal
relationship. Crawford v. Signet Bank, 179 F.3d 926, 929 (D.C. Cir. 1999). It “is not an
independent cause of action, but rather is a legal concept used to transfer liability from an agent
to a principal.” Id. A principal-agent relationship generally exists when there is “(1) an
9
indication by the principal that the agent will act on his behalf and [will be] subject to his
control, [and] (2) a manifestation of consent by the agent to so act.” Griggs v. Wash. Metro.
Area Transit Auth., 66 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 1999). The principal cannot be liable for its
agent’s conduct if the agent itself is not liable. Crawford, 179 F.3d at 929.
Henao contends that Smiths is “vicariously liable for its agents’ choices that constitute
negligence . . . .” Am. Compl. ¶ 102. But it is unclear from the remainder of the complaint
which entities he alleges were Smiths’ agents. Henao alleges that Smiths had a duty to know of
CHRTC and CHRC’s “propensities to improperly deliver the [s]canner [and] to deliver the
[s]canner in a dangerous manner.” Id. ¶¶ 18–21. But the Court dismissed those parties from this
action, with Henao’s consent, months ago. Minute Order of Jan. 15, 2019. Henao fails to make
any similar allegations against CRST and Valley in his amended complaint. More importantly,
even if he had, Henao fails to allege any facts establishing that any of these companies had an
agent-principal relationship with Smiths. He also fails to identify the specific negligent conduct
that would subject Smiths to vicarious liability. Because Henao has not adequately pled a claim
against Smiths for vicarious liability, the Court will grant Smiths’ motion as to Count II.
3. Negligent Hiring
Under Count III, Henao alleges that Smiths is liable for negligent hiring by “choosing not
to hire companies who are qualified to safely deliver its equipment.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 103.
To state a claim for negligent hiring, a plaintiff must allege specific facts that would support the
inference that “the employer did not conduct a reasonable background investigation, and that
such an investigation would have uncovered a reason not to hire the alleged tortfeasor.” Search
v. Uber Techs., Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 222, 230 (D.D.C. 2015).
10
Here, Henao asserts no facts that would support an inference that Smiths failed to
conduct a background investigation or that an investigation would have uncovered a reason not
to hire either CRST or Valley. And again, the allegations that he does make relate to the
previously dismissed defendants CHRTC and CHRC. See Am. Compl. ¶ 26 (“Defendant Smiths
breached its duty by choosing not to know of [CHRC’s] propensities to deliver the [s]canner
improperly.”). Because Henao makes no specific factual allegations supporting his claim that
Smiths negligently hired CRST or Valley—the two companies that, he alleges, were directly
responsible for his injury, id. ¶¶ 7–8—his claim for negligent hiring cannot survive. The Court
will therefore grant Smiths’ motion as to Count III.
4. Negligence Per Se
Under Count IV, Henao alleges that Smiths is liable under a theory of negligence per se
for failing “to comply with all applicable Federal and District of Columbia regulations designed
to promote public safety.” Id. ¶ 22, 30, 104. “To prevail on a negligence per se theory, the
plaintiff may, in certain circumstances and under specified conditions . . . , rely on a statute or
regulation as proof of the applicable standard of care.” McNeil Pharm. v. Hawkins, 686 A.2d
567, 578 (D.C. 1996). The statute or regulation “must impose specific duties on the defendant”
to support a negligence per se theory. Iacangelo v. Georgetown Univ., 595 F. Supp. 2d 87, 92
(D.D.C. 2009). “The party relying upon the statutory standard must, at the outset, establish its
applicability by showing that he is within the class of persons intended to be protected by it, and
that the injury incurred resulted from the type of risk against which the statute was designed to
protect.” Lewis v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 463 A.2d 666, 674 (D.C. 1983).
In this case, Henao fails to identify (1) the specific laws or regulations that Smiths
purportedly violated; (2) the specific conduct that amounted to a violation of those laws or
11
regulations; or (3) how any such violation breached of a standard of care owed to the him. His
threadbare allegation that Smiths “chose not to comply with all applicable Federal and District of
Columbia regulations designed to promote public safety,” without more, cannot sustain his claim
of negligence per se. As a result, the Court will grant Smiths’ motion as to Count IV.
IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS that CRST and Valley’s
motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 24 and 26) are GRANTED and all counts against them in
Henao’s amended complaint are DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate
CRST and Valley as parties to this action.
It is further ORDERED that Smiths’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED
and the amended complaint (ECF No. 19) is DISMISSED.
Although the Court doubts that Henao will be able cure the identified deficiencies in his
claims against Smiths, it will allow him the opportunity, if he so chooses, to file a motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint against Smiths by July 2, 2019. If Henao declines to
do so, or does not prevail on any such motion, the Court will enter a final order dismissing the
action.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy J. Kelly
TIMOTHY J. KELLY
United States District Judge
Date: June 13, 2019
12