Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_18-cv-00169/USCOURTS-ared-2_18-cv-00169-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

DELTA DIVISION 

CARNEAL EASON 

v. No. 2:18-cv-169-DPM 

WAGNER SPRAY TECH 

CORPORATION, d/b/a 

Titan Tool, Inc.; 

and SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 

ORDER 

PLAINTIFF 

DEFENDANTS 

This dispute about injuries Eason sustained while cleaning a paint 

spray gun came here by removal in 2017. There was a hugger-mugger 

at the beginning about who were the correct defendants. Doc. 3 7 in 

No. 2:17-cv-176-DPM. The result was this second case. Eason's live 

complaint has five counts: negligence in various particulars (including 

failure to warn); strict liability for a defect; and three warranty claims. 

The May 2019 Scheduling Order-which was entered belatedly for 

various reasons-prescribed a quick June 2019 deadline for 

amendments, given the age of the case and the prior proceeding. Trial 

is scheduled for December 2020. The remaining defendants recently 

moved for summary judgment, arguing that all of Eason' s claims come 

down to an alleged defect, which they argue does not exist. Eason 

responded yesterday. More than two months ago, Eason moved to 

amend his complaint with a new count: a fleshed out claim for 

Case 2:18-cv-00169-DPM Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 4
negligent failure to warn. He says the facts about this claim were only 

just revealed in the late January 2020 deposition of a defense expert. 

There has been much commendable cooperation in discovery. The 

Court is tardy in addressing the motion to amend. 

Eason candidly acknowledges that he must show good cause to 

get his amendment through the door. FED. R. Crv. P. 16(b); Kozlov v. 

Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir. 2016); 

Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). The 

proposed amendment comes almost eight months beyond the deadline. 

Defendants oppose it, pointing to all the warnings on the spray gun 

itself and in the user's manual, which Eason of course had possessed 

for many years, and contending that the expert added nothing new. 

They also argue that the amendment would be futile. 

Eason' s motion is denied. He has not provided a sufficient reason 

for the delay. Eason had access to all the information needed to put 

meat on the bones of his existing negligent warnings claim long before 

the amendment deadline. This goes to diligence. Kozlov, 818 F.3d 

at 395. And while the expert may have provided some supporting 

material for argument, Eason says his warnings claim is not one that 

requires an expert. Doc. 41 at 12-13. 

But, the warnings issue is in the case. Eason pleaded it as part of 

his negligence claim: "Failing to warn the intended consumer that the 

sprayer contained a defective condition, thereby creating a substantial 

-2-

Case 2:18-cv-00169-DPM Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 4
risk[.]" Doc. 16 at 5. This is an admittedly general statement, but read 

with the incorporated "factual background" allegations, it is not 

conclusory. Doc. 16 at 3-4. As Eason's reply documents, defendants 

understood this allegation of negligence because warnings issues run 

through their expert disclosures. Doc. 41 at 3-4; Doc. 41-2. And their 

expert gave opinions on warnings at this deposition. 

So, where does this leave things? The motion to amend fails. 

Eason has a negligence claim, which he may press and argue in terms 

of allegedly inadequate warnings. The Court therefore gives 

defendants until 8 May 2020 to reply in general and expand their 

summary judgment papers to address warnings specifically. As Eason 

notes, defendants' futility argument against the proposed amendment 

is really one for summary judgment. Please bring it all together. The 

Court requests a sur-reply (limited to warnings) from Eason by 22 May 

2020. As the moving parties, defendants will get the last word on 

warnings, with any sur-sur-reply on those issues due by 2 June 2020. 

* * * 

Motion to amend, Doc. 36 & 38, denied. Briefing schedule 

extended. Joint report, Doc. 45, appreciated. Given the parties' 

willingness, the Court refers the case to Magistrate Judge Kearney to 

hold a settlement conference on a mutually convenient date in July. 

-3-

Case 2:18-cv-00169-DPM Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 4
So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall (r. 

United States District Judge 

-4-

Case 2:18-cv-00169-DPM Document 49 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 4