Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bruce C. and Lisa C. v. Electrolux Home Products

February 15, 2011

BRUCE C. AND LISA C. ENTELISANO, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.;
SEARS HARDWARE; AND SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: David N. Hurd United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs bring this action against defendants seeking compensation for damages they sustained when their Rome, New York, home was destroyed by fire on February 14, 2010. Plaintiffs assert that the fire was caused by an internal malfunction in the kitchen stove, which was manufactured by defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. ("Electrolux") and sold by defendants Sears Hardware and Sears Holding Corporation (collectively "Sears"). The complaint alleged five causes of action. First, strict products liability; Second, negligence; Third, breach of warranty; Fourth, negligent infliction of emotional distress; and Fifth, loss of companionship. The defendants have answered the complaint.

Both defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth and Fifth causes of action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).*fn1 Additionally, Electrolux has filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of its prior letter motion to permit Electrolux's counsel to also represent Sears. Plaintiffs oppose all three motions. The motions were taken on submit.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts, taken from the complaint, are accepted as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss.

On December 29, 2007, plaintiffs purchased a Kenmore kitchen stove from the Sears Hardware store located in Rome, New York. The stove had been manufactured, designed, and distributed by Electrolux. The condition of the stove remained unaltered from the time of its manufacture and shipment from Electrolux to the Sears store in Rome. Plaintiffs transported the stove, in its original packaging and box, without incident to their home. After removing the packaging, plaintiffs installed the stove by positioning it in the kitchen and plugging it into the wall. Plaintiffs did not remove any parts or alter the stove in any manner.

On the morning of February 14, 2010, plaintiffs and their children left the home. At approximately 12:15p.m. plaintiffs were notified by the Rome Police Department that there had been a fire at their residence. Plaintiffs returned home to find the house destroyed by fire, smoke, and water damage. Moreover, the family pets-two dogs and several fish-perished in the fire. Plaintiffs hired a private fire investigator who determined that the blaze was caused by an internal malfunction in the stove.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Electrolux's Motion for Reconsideration

On January 5, 2011, Electrolux filed a letter motion seeking to substitute its attorneys for those of Sears. In essence, Electrolux requested that its attorneys be permitted to also represent Sears, which consented to joint representation. This motion was denied by oral order on January 14, 2011. Electrolux has filed a motion for reconsideration and attached affidavits from its Assistant General Counsel and the Assistant Corporate Secretary for Sears in which both defendants waive any potential conflicts and agree to joint representation.

"A court may justifiably reconsider its previous ruling if: (1) there is an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new evidence not previously available comes to light; or (3) it becomes necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice." Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F. Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.). Electrolux relies on the second and third prongs of this test. The alleged new evidence includes the fact that Electrolux agreed to defend and indemnify Sears in this action, and both parties consented to joint representation as well as waived any potential conflicts of interest. Electrolux also maintains that the denial of its motion was error because it did not have a chance to reply to plaintiffs' opposition, and it is now forced to pay two law firms as it has agreed to defend and indemnify Sears.

Although Electrolux characterizes its agreement to defend and indemnify Sears as "new" evidence, it cites a December 14, 2010, letter that memorializes such an agreement. This evidence was clearly available when Electrolux filed its original letter motion on January 5, 2011. Further, Electrolux's letter motion included a consent form signed by a Sears representative. In light of the possible conflicts that will arise at trial, it was necessary to deny the motion. See United States v. Simeonov, 252 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (explaining that the district court has broad discretion when evaluating a motion to substitute counsel). Further, even if defendants' affidavits attesting to their waiver of any potential conflicts constitute "new" evidence, they neither mandate reconsideration nor are persuasive that substitution of counsel is proper or appropriate.

The argument that it was clear error to rule on the motion before Electrolux had a chance to file a reply is without merit. The Local Rules of the Northern District indicate that reply papers "are not permitted without the Court's prior permission" when the motion at issue is non-dispositive. N.D.N.Y. Local R. 7.1(b)(2). Electrolux's motion to substitute counsel was a non-dispositive motion. As such, Electrolux was not automatically entitled to file a reply. Finally, the argument that its obligation to pay Sears's law firm in addition to its own counsel ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.