## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 17 24

__ __ __ __ __ _ Ang el a Bl oc k, as Trus te e fo r th e Nex t * of Kin of J .A., a m in or , dec eas ed , J.A. *

a m in or , by he r m ot he r an d n at ur al *
gu ard ia n, An ge la Blo ck ; An ge la Blo ck

, * in di vi du al ly, *

* Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Toyota Mo to r Co rp or at io n, a J ap an es e *

co rp or at io n; Toyota M ot or Nort h * Am eri ca, In c., a Cal ifo rn ia co rp or at io n; * Cal ty D es ig n R es earc h, In c., * a Cal ifo rn ia co rp or at io n; Toyota M ot or * Eng in eeri ng an d M an uf

act ur in g No rth * Am eri ca, In c., a Ken tu ck y co rp or at io n; * Toyota Mo to r Man uf

act ur in g, * Ken tu ck y , Inc ., a Kent uc ky corp or at io n; * Toyota Mo to r Sal es , USA, Inc., a * Cal ifo rn ia co rp or at io n, *

* Defen da nt s, *

* Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs , Inc
., * a Mi nn es ot a co rp or at io n d oi ng bu si ne ss *

as Toyota C it y , *

* Defen da nt - App el le e. *__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 11 Fi le d: Decem

be r 19 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ang el a Bl oc k su ed Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs an d se v e r a l To y ot a affi li at es in
Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t aft er he r so n was ki ll ed an d h er d au gh te r se rio us ly inju red in

a cras h wit h a 19 96 Toyota Cam ry

. In he r cap aci ty as tru st ee an d gu ard ia n an d al so in di vi du al ly, Bl oc k a ss ert ed cla im s o f wro ng fu l d eat h a nd pe rs on al in jury bas ed on
st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y , ne gl ig en ce, an d frau d. Afte r de fen da nt s rem ov ed th e cas e to
fed eral co ur t, Bl oc k fil ed a mo ti on to rem an d arg ui ng th at rem ov al was im pr op er si nc e Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs is a ci ti zen of M in ne so ta , th e fo ru m st at e. The d is tri ct

co ur t co nc lu de d th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ha d be en f r au du le nt ly joi ne d be cau se 1

Bl oc k ha d no t as se rte d an y reas on ab le ba si s fo r reco ve ry ag ai ns t it

, de ni ed he r m ot io n
to rem an d, an d di sm is se d w it h pr ejud ic e al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs

. Bl oc k ap pe al s th e de ni al of he r m ot io n to rem an d an d th e di sm is sa l of Bro ok lyn Park
Mo to rs . W e aff

irm.

I.

Thi s ca se ari se s ou t of a tra gi c au to m ob il e acci de nt in St . P au l, Mi nn es ot a in
Ju ne 20 06
, whi ch in vo lv ed two of Bl oc k's ch il dr en

. Ja vi s Tric e-Ad am s was dr iv in g

a car wit h fo ur pa ss en ge rs : hi s so n Ja vi s Ada m s, hi s da ug ht er Ja ss m in e Ada m s,

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-2

-Qui nc y Ada m s, and Dev y n Bol to n. Blo ck is th e m ot he r of bo th Ja vi s and Ja ss m in e

Ada m s. W hi le Tric e

- A d a ms was st op pe d at an in te rs ect io n, a 19 96 Toyota Cam ry dr iv en by Ko ua Fo ng Lee hi t hi s car fro m be hi nd , p us hi ng it in to on co m in g tra ffi c. Bl oc k's co m

pl ai nt al le ge s th a t t h e a cci de nt ha pp en ed aft er th e Toyota su dd en ly

acce le rat ed to at le as t 70 m il es pe r ho ur an d di d no t de cel erat e ev en th ou gh Fo ng Lee

ap pl ie d th e br ak es

. Tric e-Ad am s an d Ja vi s Ada m s di ed on th e sc en e. Dev y n Bo lt on

was ren de re d a q u a d rip le gi c an d la te r di ed

. Qui nc y an d Ja ss m in e Ada m s were

se ve rel y in jure d b ut su rv iv ed

.

Afte r th e 2 0 0 6 a c c id en t Fo ng Lee was arre st ed an d co nv ic te d of cri m in al
ho m ic id e. He ha d pu rch as ed th e Toyota Cam ry th at y ear fro m i t s f i r s t o w ne r, who
ha d bo ug ht it ne w fro m Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs in 19 96

. The car ha d ap pr ox im at el y 17 0,0 00 m il es on th e od om et er whe n Fo ng Lee pu rch as ed it

. Fo ng Lee's co nv ic ti on

was ev en tu al ly va cat ed aft er ev id en ce of su dd en accele rat io n in ot he r Toyota ve hi cl es

was pro du ced in po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in gs

.

In 20 10 Bl oc k br ou gh t an act io n i n M i n n e so ta st at e co ur t ag ai ns t Bro ok lyn
Park Mo to rs an d a nu m be r of Toyota affi li at ed co m pa ni es (Toyot a de fen da nt s)

as se rti ng cl ai m s of st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y , neg li ge nc e, res ip sa lo qu it ur , a nd frau d.
Bl oc k a ll eg es th at th e Toyota Cam ry was de fect iv e b ecau se it su dd en ly accel erat ed

an d th at th e Nati on al Hig hwa y Tran sp or ta ti on Safe ty Adm in is tra ti on (NHTSA) ha d

rec e i ve d "n um ero us co m pl ai nt s" ab ou t in ci de nt s of su dd en acce le rat io n in Toyota
Cam ry s. The Toyota de fen da nt s rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t. Bl oc k th e n m ov ed to

rem an d to st at e co ur t arg ui ng th at rem ov al was im pr op er un de r 28 U.S.C. § 14 41 (b )
be cau se Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs is a ci ti zen o f M i n ne so ta

. The Toyota de fen da nt s 2

The pa rti es do no t d is pu te th e d is tri ct co ur t's fin di ng th at co m pl et e d iv ers it y 2

ex is ts un de r 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 si nc e B l o c k i s th e on ly pa rty who is a ci ti zen of Mi ss ou ri.

-3

-arg ue d th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs was frau du le nt ly joi ne d an d th eref or e th e m ot io n
to rem an d s ho ul d b e d en ie d.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n to rem an d an d di sm is se d al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t
Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs wit h pr ejud ic e. It co nc lu de d th at Mi nn es ot a's "s el le r's

ex cep ti on st at ut e," whi ch al lo ws f o r d i s m is sa l of st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y cl ai m s
ag ai ns t se ll ers , ap pl ie d to Bl oc k's st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m s. See Mi nn St at

. § 54 4.4 1. The

co ur t de ci de d th at th e pr ov is io na l na tu re o f t h e d is m is sa l un de r th at st at ut e di d no t

pr ecl ud e a fin di ng of frau du le nt joi nd er in th is cas e. It co nc lu de d th at no reas on ab le
ba si s fo r st ric t li ab il it y ex is te d ag ai ns t B r o o k l yn P a rk Mo to rs si nc e it di d no t ha ve
act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d de fect an d th at th ere was no reas on ab le ba si s fo r th e

ne gl ig en ce cl ai m

whi ch als o re qu ire d k no wled ge of t he all eg ed de fect

.

Bl oc k th en m ov ed to reco ns id er or fo r en try of fin al jud gm en t on th e di sm is sa l
of Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs

. In he r m ot io n to reco ns id er Bl oc k al le ge d th at th ere were

nu m ero us co m

pl ai nt s to NHTSA ab ou t su dd en acce le rat io n whi c h s h o wed th at
Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ha d act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d de fect

, bu t Bl oc k di d no t

pr od u c e an y ex am

pl es of su ch co m

pl ai nt s. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n to

reco ns id er an d en te red fin al jud gm en t in fav or of Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs

. Bl oc k no w
ap pe al s th e de ni al of he r m ot io n to rem an d, arg ui ng th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs was

no t frau du le nt ly joi ne d an d sh ou ld no t ha ve be en d is m is se d. At arg um en t Bl oc k
fu r t h e r c o n te nd ed th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs sh ou ld no t ha ve be en di sm is se d wit h

pr ejud ic e.

II.

W e rev ie w de no v o t h e d i s t ric t co ur t's de ni al of th e m ot io n to rem an d.
Knu ds on v. Sy st em s Pain te rs , In c., 63 4 F.3 d 96 8, 97 5 (8t h Cir. 20 11 ). A de fen da nt

m ay rem ov e a cas e to fed eral co ur t in di ve rs it y cas es "o nl y if n on e of th e pa rti es in
in te res t pr op erl y joi ne d an d se rv ed as de fen da nt s is a ci ti zen of th e St at e in whi ch

-4

-su ch act io n is br ou gh t." 28 U.S.C. § 14 41 (b ). Bl oc k arg ue s th at si nc e Bro ok lyn Park

Mo to rs is a ci ti zen of Mi nn es ot a, th e st at e in whi ch th e act io n was br ou gh t, rem ov al

was in ap pr op ria te an d re m an d i s re qu ire d.

If th ere was "n o reas on ab le ba si s in fact an d la w" fo r Bl oc k's cl ai m s a g a in st
Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs , Fi ll a v. Nor fo lk S. Ry

. Co
., 33 6 F.3 d 80 6, 81 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

, joi nd er of Broo kl y n P ark Mo to rs was "fr au du le nt ," m ean in g th at
it was na m ed as a pa rty "s ol el y to pr ev en t rem ov al " of th e cas e fro m st at e co ur t. Id

. at 80 9. If Bro ok lyn P a r k M o t or s was frau du le nt ly joi ne d, bo th th e di st ric t co ur t's
d en ia l of th e m ot io n to rem an d an d th e di sm is sa l of Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs were
pr op er.

Frau du le nt joi nd er d oe s n ot ex is t wh ere " th ere is arg ua bl y a reas on ab le ba si s fo r pr ed ic ti ng th at th e st at e la w m ig ht im po se li ab il it y ba se d up on th e fact s in vo lv ed ."
Ju nk v. Term in ix In t'l Co ., 62 8 F .3d 43 9, 4 46 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In

or de r to es ta bl is h frau du le nt joi nd er, th e de fen da nt m us t "d o m or e th an m erel y pr ov e th at th e pl ai nt iff

's cl ai m s h o u l d b e di sm is se d pu rs ua nt to a Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n"
si nc e "we do no t fo cu s on th e art fu ln es s of th e pl ai nt iff 's pl ead in gs ." Knu ds on , 63 4
F.3 d at 98 0. In frau du le nt joi nd er cas es , so m e co ur ts ex am in e m at eri al be y on d th e

co m pl ai nt 's al le ga ti on s to "d et erm in e if th ere is an y f a c t u a l s u pp or t" fo r th e cl ai m s
ag ai ns t th e al le ge dl y frau du le nt ly joi ne d def en da nt

. See Mas ep oh l v. Am

. Tob acco Co
., In c., 97 4 F. Su pp

. 12 45
, 12 50 (D. Mi nn

. 19 97 ). "Al l do ub ts a b o u t f e d e ral juri sd ic ti on sh ou ld be res ol ve d in fav or of rem an d to st at e co ur t." In re Prem pr o Pro d. Li ab . Liti g., 5 91 F.3d 61 3, 6 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Bl oc k arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng frau du le nt joi nd er, di sm is si ng Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs , an d de nyin g th e m ot io n to rem an d be cau se th ere is a reas on ab le ba si s in fact an d la w fo r he r st ric t li ab il it y an d ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s. W e ad dr es s t he se cla im s s ep arat el y

.

-5

-A.

Bl oc k fir st arg ue s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in fin di ng no "rea so na bl e ba si s in fact an d la w" fo r he r st ric t li ab il i t y c l ai m s ag ai ns t Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs

. Mi nn es ot a ha s a "s el le r's ex cep ti on " st at ut e whi ch m an da te s di sm is sa l of st ric t
li ab il it y cl ai m s a g ai ns t no nm an uf act ur ers whe re th e no nm an uf act ur er pr ov id es th e id en ti ty of th e m an uf

act ur er, un le ss th e pl ai nt iff sh ows th at th e no nm an uf act ur er fal ls
in to on e o f th ree e xc ep ti on s:

( a ) th at th e de fen da nt ha s ex erci se d so m e si gn ifi can t co nt ro l ov er th e de si gn or man uf

act ur e of th e pr od uc t, or ha s pr ov id ed in st ru ct io ns or

warn in gs to th e m an uf

act ur er rel at iv e to th e al le ge d de fect in th e pr od uc t
whi ch cau se d t he in

jury, de at h o r da m ag e;

(b ) th at th e de fen da nt ha d act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e de fect in th e pr od uc t
whi ch cau se d t he in

jury, de at h o r da m ag e; or

(c) th at th e de fen da nt crea te d th e de fect in th e pr od uc t whi ch cau se d th e in jury, de at h o r da m ag e.

Mi nn

. St at

. § 54 4.4 1 su bd iv

. 3. If th e pl ai nt iff can sh ow on e of th e th ree ex cep ti on s, di sm is sa l is pr oh ib it ed

. If no ex cep ti on ap p l i e s , d i s m is sa l is m an da to ry bu t "[t ]he

p l a i nt iff m ay at an y ti m e su bs eq ue nt to di sm is sa l m ov e to va cat e th e or de r o f
di sm is sa l an d rei ns ta te th e . . . d efen da nt " wh ere i t ca n s ho w an i na bi li ty to reco ve r
ag ai ns t th e m an uf

act ur er. Id

. su bd iv

. 2. The st at ut e th us "t em pe rs th e ha rs h effe ct of

st ric t li ab il it y as it ap pl ie s to pa ss iv e se ll ers , whi le en su rin g th at a pe rs on in jure d by

a de fect iv e pr od uc t can reco ve r fro m a vi ab le so ur ce." In re Sh ig el lo si s Lit i g., 64 7
N.W .2d 1, 6 (Mi nn . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 2)

.

Bl oc k co nt en ds th at di sm is sa l un de r § 54 4.4 1 is al way s pr o v i s io na l an d th us th e Mi nn es ot a se ll er's ex cep ti on st at ut e is ne ve r a pr op er ba si s fo r fin di ng frau du le nt

-6

-joi nd er. Sh e st at es th at th e st at u t e a l l o w s rei ns ta te m en t of th e se ll er "at an y ti m e

s u b se qu en t to di sm is sa l" un de r cert ai n co nd it io ns , se e id

. su bd iv

. 2, an d th u s Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs wou ld rem ai n "fu nc ti on al ly a pa rty," pr ecl ud in g rem ov al

. Sh e ci te s Ill in oi s and Mi ss ou ri d is tri ct co ur t ca se s s ug ge st in g th at un de r si m il ar sta tu te s in th os e st at es t h e s e ll er "re m ai ns fu nc ti on al ly a pa rty, s us cep ti bl e of rei ns ta te m en t

at an y ti m e be fo re jud gm en t." LaRo e v. Cas se ns & So ns , In c., 47 2 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 41
, 10 53 (S.D. Ill . 2 00 6) ; se e Dor se y v. Sek is ui Am . C or p., 79 F. Su pp

. 2 d 1 0 8 9, 10 92 ( E. D

. M o

. 1 99 9)

. Sh e arg ue s th at th ere is an "o bv io us ris k" th at th e Toyot a de fen da nt s co ul d go ba nk ru pt or ot he rwis e be co m e un ab le to pa y a jud gm en t in whi ch

cas e Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs co ul d b e rei ns ta te d. Se e § 54 4.4 1 s ub di v. 2 (d ), (e).

The di st ric t co ur t co nc l u d e d th at "[w]hi le a rem ot e ch an ce ex is ts th at a

c a t a s t r op hi c gl ob al eco no m ic ev en t wil l ba nk ru pt al l th e Toyota [d ]efend an ts , th at

ex tre m el y un li ke ly po ss ib il it y do es no t ris e ab ov e th e le ve l of th e hypo th et ic al " an d
th us th ere was no reas on ab le ba si s fo r a cl ai m of st ric t li ab il it y ag ai ns t Bro ok lyn Park
Mo to rs m erel y be cau se of th e st at ut e's rei ns ta te m en t p r o vi si on

. Bro ok lyn Park
Mo to rs no te s th at ev en in th e un li ke ly ev en t of ban kr up tc y Toyota de fen da nt s carry "s ubst an tia l ins ur an ce co ve ra ge , " whi ch wou ld pr ecl ud e Bro ok lyn Park Mot or s' fu tur e rei ns ta te m en t u nd er t he st at ut e.

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut or y se ll er's ex cep ti on do es no t p recl ud e a fi nd in g of frau du le nt joi nd er fo r joi ni ng Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs

as a de fen da nt in th is cas e. The M is so ur i s ta tu te Blo ck refe rs to is di ss im il ar, fo r it

pr ov id es th at a de fen da nt di sm is se d un de r it rem ai ns a pa rty fo r juri sd ic ti on pu rp os es

. Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 53 7.7 62 (6 ). The Ill in oi s cas es rel y on cas es in te rp ret in g th e Mi ss ou ri st at ut e. In co nt ras t, th e di sm is se d se ll er de fen da nt do es no t rem ai n a pa rty

un de r th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e. Tha t st at ut e ha s al so be en in te rp ret ed to al lo w a fin di ng

o f frau du le nt joi nd er. See Mas ep oh l, 97 4 F. Su pp

. at 12 56 (d en y in g m ot io n t o

rem an d ba se d on fin di ng of frau du le nt joi nd er). Here, Bl oc k ha s fai le d to sh ow an y

reas on ab le ba si s fo r fin di ng th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs m ig ht be rei ns ta te d. See

-7

-Hen de rs on v. Fo rd Mo to r Co
., 34 0 F

. S u p p

. 2d 72 2, 72 7 (N.D. Mi ss

. 20 04 )

(d is m is si ng car de al ers hi p whe re pl ai nt iff of fere d no "re al is ti c sc en a r i o " i n whi ch
Fo rd Mo to r Co m

pa ny wou ld be un ab le to sa ti sf y a jud gm en t an d th us th e de al ers hi p

wou ld be rei ns ta te d u nd er a s im il ar Mi ss is si pp i s ta tu te ).

Bl oc k al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng wit h pr ejud ic e. Sh e

as se rts th at if a c o u rt di sm is se s a de fen da nt wit h pr ejud ic e un de r th e Mi nn es ot a

se ll er's ex cep ti on st at ut e, th at de fen da nt can no t be rei ns ta te d un de r s u b d i v i s io n 2.
The st at ut e do es no t ho wev er sp eci fy th at di sm is sa l be wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. Bl oc k ha s

no t exp la in ed why a de fen da nt di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e un de r th e st at ut e co ul d no t
be rei ns ta te d un de r su bd iv is io n 2, whi ch ex pr es sl y pr ov id es fo r an or de r of di sm is sa l

to be va cat ed an d a de fen da nt rei ns ta te d in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces

. Cf. Mu rrel l, 20 10
W L 10 50 30 9, at *3 (implying th at di sm is sa l un de r st at ut e wou ld be wit h pr ejud ic e).
The di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in di sm is si ng Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs wit h p reju di ce.

Bl oc k fu rth er ar gu es th at th e di st ric t cou rt erred in fin di ng frau du le nt joi nd er be cau se sh e ha s es ta bl is he d th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ha d act ua l kn owl ed ge of th e de fect

, m eet in g on e of th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e's ex cep ti on s to m an da to ry di sm is sa l of

a st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m ag ai ns t a se ll er. § 54 4.4 1 su bd iv

. 3( b)

. The di st ric t co ur t no te d 3
th at "Bl oc k ha s no t m ad e an y sp eci f i c a l l e g a ti on s co nc ern in g ho w Bro ok lyn Park
Mo to rs ha d kn owl ed ge reg ard in g a de fect in a pr od u c t t h a t i t d id no t de si gn or

m an u f a ct ur e an d whi ch di d no t m an ife st it se lf fo r m or e th an te n y ears aft er th e

ve hi cl e le ft Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ' co nt ro l." It co nc lu de d th at "n o reas on ab le ba si s in fact an d l aw ex is ts for th e st ric t l ia bi li ty clai m s ag ai ns t Br oo kl y n P ark Mo to rs ."

Bl oc k al so su gg es ts th at Bro ok l y n Park Mo to rs crea te d th e de fect un de r 3

su bd iv is io n 3( c) be cau se it "fa il ed to warn of th e da ng ero us co nd it io n

. . . bo th be fo re

an d aft er it s in it ia l sa le ." Bl oc k di d n o t a rg ue th is be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we de cl in e to reac h i t. See W rig ht v. Newm an , 73 5 F .2d 10 73 , 10 76 (8t h C ir. 1 98 4)

.
-8

-Bl oc k arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at act ua l kn owl ed ge

was no t de m on st rat ed

. Sh e po in ts to nu m ero us ge ne ral iz ed al le ga ti on s of kn owl ed ge in he r co m

pl ai nt as to al l de fen da nt s joi nt ly, su ch as "Def en da nt s kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own of nu m ero us pr io r de at hs

, in juri es , acci de nt s, co m

pl ai nt s, an d cl ai m s m ad e to
Defen d a nt s in vo lv in g un in te nd ed acce le rat io n of Toyota Cam ry s an d ot he r

su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar ve hi cl es " or th at th ey ha d "ac tu al kn owl ed g e o f o t h e r in juri es

an d de at hs cau se d by th e de fect iv e an d da ng ero us co nd it io n of th e ve hi cl e." Sh e al so

a l le ge d th at "n um ero us co m pl ai nt s ha ve be en rep or te d to th e Nati on al Hig hwa y Tran sp or ta ti on S afet y Adm in is tra ti on do cu m en ti ng in ci de nt s of un in te nd ed

acce le rat io n o f Toyota Cam ry ve hi cl es ."

W e ag ree with th e di st ric t cou rt th at Bl oc k ha s of fere d no reas on ab le ba si s in
fact an d la w to su pp or t a st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m ag ai ns t Broo kl y n Park Mo to rs in li gh t
of th e Mi nn es o ta st at ut e. The co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt th at "t he
Defen da nt s" kn ew of th e al le ge d d efec t ar e in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at Bro ok lyn Park
Mo to rs ha d actu al kn owl ed ge as req ui red by § 54 4.4 1 s ub di v. 3 (b ). Mi nn es ot a la w do es no t im

po se a ge ne ral po st sa le du ty to warn

. Hod de r v. Goo dyear Tire & Ru bb er Co
., 42 6 N.W .2d 82 6, 83 3 (Mi nn

. 19 88 ). Thu s, th e rel ev an t i n q u i r y is whe th er Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ha d kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d de fect pr io r to th e sa le

. Bl oc k's

co m pl ai nt do es no t all eg e th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ha d k no wled ge of th e al le ge d
de fect be fo re it so ld th e car in 19 96
, no r do es sh e al le ge th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ha d a ny kn owl ed ge at a ll of a de fect in th e 1 99 6 m od el y ear v eh ic le s.

Bl oc k as ks th at we co ns id er he r co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s ab ou t th ree s p e c i fic
NHTSA co m

pl ai nt s in vo lv in g 19 96 Toyota Cam ry s. Onl y on e of th em was m ad e 4
be fo re Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs so ld th e Cam ry

. Bl oc k do es no t ex pl ai n ho w Bro ok lyn
Park Mo to rs wou ld ha ve ga in ed kn owl ed ge of a de fect in t h e 1 9 9 6 C a m ry m erel y

It s h o u l d be no te d th at Bl oc k ha s no t pr od uc ed th e NHTSA co m pl ai nt s to 4 whi ch sh e refe rs an d as ks th e co ur t to rel y on th e as se r t i o n s i n h e r b r ie f as to th ei r

su bs ta nc e.
-9

-be cau se on e is ol at ed in ci de nt ha d be en rep or te d to a fed eral ag en cy

. Nor do es Bl oc k

sh ow th at th e feat ur e whi ch al le ge dl y cau s e d u n i nt en de d acce le rat io n in th e 19 96

co m pl ai nt to NHTSA ex is t e d in Fo ng Lee's car. As to th e ot he r two al le ge d

co m pl ai nt s, bo th oc cu rred aft er Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ' sa le of Fo ng Lee's Cam ry , an d
it is no t cl ear t ha t t he y

in vo lv ed 19 96 Cam

ry s.

W e co nc lu de th at th ere is no "re as on ab le ba si s fo r pr ed ic ti ng th at [Mi nn es ot a]
la w m ig ht im

po se li ab il it y ba se d up on th e fact s in vo lv ed ." Fi ll a, 33 6 F.3 d at 81 1; se e Mas ep oh l, 97 4 F. Su pp

. at 12 54 (fi nd in g frau du le nt joi nd er in pa rt be cau se in li gh t
of § 54 4.4 1 pl ai nt iff "fa il ed to es ta bl is h th e po ss ib il it y of a co lo rab le st ric t pro du ct s li ab il it y cl ai m " ag ai ns t di st rib ut or de sp it e as se rti on th at di st rib ut or "h ad kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d d efec ts ").

Bl oc k fu rth er arg ue s th at ev en if sh e ha s no t es ta bl is he d a reas on ab le ba si s in
fact an d law for her str ic t lia bi li ty cl ai m s in li gh t of the Mi nn es ot a st at ut e, th e co ur t

erre d by di sm is si ng Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs be fo re di sc ov ery. Bl oc k rel ie s on Mu rrel l

v. Zim m er, In c., whe re a se ll er de fen da nt 's m ot io n to di sm is s was de ni ed on th e ba si s of § 54 4.4 1 du e to th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc ern th at di sm is sa l befo re dis co ve ry m ig ht
"al lo w a no n- pa ss iv e se ll er to es cap e li ab i l i ty" un de r th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e. No.
09 –7 57
, 20 10 W L 10 50 30 9, at *3 (D. Mi nn

. Mar

. 18
, 20 10 ). Mu rrel l di d no t in vo lv e

a mo t i on to rem an d or al le ga ti on s of frau du le nt joi nd er, ho wev er; th e pa rti es th er e di sa gr eed ab ou t whe th er th e co rrec t m an uf act ur er ha d be en id en ti f ie d so it was

un cl ear whet he r a di sm is sa l of th e m an uf act ur er un de r § 54 4.4 1 was av ai la bl e. The
frau du le nt joi nd er d oc tri ne an ti ci pa te s re so lu ti on of ju ris di ct io na l i ss ue s at an earl y
st ag e aft er rem ov al so th at th e cas e can be pro pe rly rem an de d t o s ta te co ur t if th ere is no juri sd ic ti on

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by
de nyi n g th e m ot io n to rem an d an d di sm is si ng Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs be fo re di sc ov ery.

-1 0-B.

Fi na ll y , Bl oc k arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng no reas on ab le ba si s fo r he r ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s ag ai ns t Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs

. Bl oc k's ne gl ig en ce th eo ry
ap pe ars to be th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs fai le d to warn co ns um ers de sp it e kn owi ng of th e al le ge d d efec t i n th e 19 96 Cam ry . B ro ok lyn Park Mo to rs wou ld ha ve ha d t o ha ve kn own or ha d r e a s o n t o kn ow of th e al le ge d de fect be fo re it wou ld in cu r an y du ty to warn ab ou t th e al le g e d d efec t. See Frey v. Mo nt go m ery W ard & Co
., In c., 25 8 N.W .2d 78 2, 78 6 (Mi nn

. 19 77 ); Eric ks on v. Am

. Hon da Mo to r Co
., In c., 45 5
N.W .2d 74
, 77 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 90 ); Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of Tort s § 40 1 (1 96 5)

. Nor is th ere a du ty to warn if th e co nn ect io n be twee n th e in jury an d th e al le ge dl y

ne gl ig en t act is to o rem ot e. Go r a t h v

. Ro ck well In t'l

, In c., 44 1 N.W .2d 12 8, 13 3 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 89 ) (n o du ty to warn whe re th e co nn ect io n be twee n th e pr od uc t's

sa le "an d t he acci de nt so m e 9 y ears lat er was to o re m ot e to im po se li ab il it y ").

B l o c k h a s of

fere d no fact ua l ba si s th at Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs ha d an y kn owl ed ge of

, or reas on to kn ow of

, th e al l e g e d de fect so as to su bjec t it to

ne gl ig en ce li ab il it y

. The re was no ev id en ce of th e Cam ry' s a l l e g ed pr ob le m wit h

su dd en acce le rat io n un ti l te n y ears ha d pa ss ed

, an d th e car ha d be en dr iv en 17 0,0 00

m il es

. W e co nc lu de th ere is no reas on ab le ba si s fo r Bl oc k's ne gl ig en ce cl ai m ag ai ns t
B r o o k l yn P ark Mo to rs ba se d on th e fact s as se rte d in th is cas e an d th at th e di st ric t

co ur t's fin di ng of f

rau du le nt joi nd er was no t i m pr op er.

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d en ia l of th e m ot io n to rem an d an d th e di sm is sa l
of Bro ok lyn Park Mo to rs wit h p reju di ce.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-