Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04430/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04430-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTEN NICODEMUS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BIRD BRAIN, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-12-4430 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BIRD

BRAIN, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Bird Brain, Inc.’s (“Bird Brain”) “Motion to Dismiss

Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Punitive

Damages and Attorney’s Fees,” filed November 29, 2012. Plaintiff Kristen Nicodemus has

filed opposition, to which Bird Brain has replied. Having read and considered the papers

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for

decision on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled

for January 11, 2013, and rules as follows:

1. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees,

the motion is hereby GRANTED, for the reasons stated by Bird Brain and in light of

plaintiff’s agreement to withdraw said claim. (See Pl.’s Opp. at 1:26-28.)

2. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages,

for the asserted reason that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fails to sufficiently allege

facts to support such claim, the motion is hereby GRANTED. Specifically, in the

Case 3:12-cv-04430-MMC Document 34 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court observes that although the proposed SAC seeks to clarify the factual

basis for said claim (see id. Ex. A at 8:16-17), said proposed pleading continues to include

the above-referenced factual inconsistency (compare id. Ex. A. at 1:28 - 2:2 and id. Ex. A

at 8:14-16 with id. Ex. A at 5:11-12).

2

In light of the dismissal, the Court finds it unnecessary to determine whether such

claim should be dismissed on the basis of the FAC’s failure to identify by name an officer,

director or managing agent who acted on behalf of Bird Brain. The Court notes, however,

that plaintiff’s proposed SAC does name two executives who are alleged to have acted on

behalf of Bird Brain (see id. Ex. A at 3:7-24, 8:28 - 9:5), and, as noted, plaintiff will be

afforded leave to amend.

2

paragraphs in which the claim for punitive damages is set forth, the facts on which such

claim is based are inconsistent with, or at best ambiguous in light of, other factual

allegations made in the FAC. (Compare FAC at 1:28 - 2:2 (alleging plaintiff injured on

September 3, 2011), FAC at 6:16-17 (alleging Bird Brain took “no public action” prior to

September 3, 2011) and FAC at 6:17-18 (alleging “[h]ad Bird Brain acted expeditiously,

[p]laintiff may never have been burned”) with FAC at 4:20-21 (alleging Bird Brain

“announced voluntary recalls of pourable Fuel Gel” on September 1, 2011).) In her

opposition, plaintiff clarifies, however, that her claim for punitive damages is based on Bird

Brain’s having “delayed” the recall (see, e.g., Pl.’s Opp. at 11:4-5), and in connection with

her opposition has submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint (“proposed SAC”)

that includes factual allegations in support thereof (see Andrus Decl. Ex. A at 4:24-25, 6:10-

7:16, 9:8-12).1

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages will be dismissed, with

leave to amend.2

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Bird Brain’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED,

with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file any Second Amended Complaint no later than

January 25, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-04430-MMC Document 34 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2