IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROBERT AGNEW,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY, et

al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 10-3942(NLH)(AMD)

OPINION

Appearances:

DANIEL J. MANN

1845 WALNUT STREET

25TH FLOOR

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103

On behalf of plaintiff

JEFFREY PHILIP BRIEN

O'BRIEN & RYAN LLP

HICKORY POINTE

2250 HICKORY ROAD, SUITE 300

PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA 19462 

On behalf of defendants Reliance Electric Company, Rockwell

Automotion, Inc., Riverside Company, Integrated Power

Services, LLC, and Baldor Electric Company

RONALD L. DAUGHERTY

SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI

WOODCREST PAVILLION

10 MELROSE AVENUE

SUITE 450

CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003 

On behalf of defendants Inta Rota, Inc. and Inta Rota Machine

Company, Inc.

HILLMAN, District Judge

Presently before the Court are the motions of defendants to

dismiss plaintiff’s claims that defendants are liable for the

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 384
injuries he sustained when a roll of aluminum fell off a “Slitter”

machine’s accompanying cart and onto him. Plaintiff claims that

defendants, including John Doe defendants, sold a defective

product, which had been negligently designed and manufactured. In

their motions to dismiss, defendants argue that plaintiff’s

complaint fails to meet the basic pleading standards required under

the Federal Rules. Plaintiff has opposed defendants’ motions. For

the reasons expressed below, defendants’ motions will be denied.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

According to his complaint, on June 26, 2008, plaintiff 1

Robert Agnew was working at Aleris International, Inc., where he

was operating a texture shear line drive, or a “Slitter.”2

Plaintiff and several co-workers were in the process of removing a

roll of aluminum that had gone through the Slitter and had been

transferred to the cart used to transport the aluminum rolls. 

While plaintiff was preparing to insert a cardboard separator, one

of the rolls of aluminum fell off the cart and rolled onto him,

knocking him over and pinning him to the ground under the roll. 

Plaintiff claims that this occurrence resulted in significant and

Plaintiff originally filed his case in New Jersey Superior 1

Court, and amended his complaint prior to defendants’ removal of

his action to this Court. This Court has subject matter

jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because

there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties

and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Defendants explain that a “Slitter” is a type of machine 2

that cuts sheets of materials into smaller sheets, strips, or

rolls.

2

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 385
permanent injuries to his legs, chest, back and other areas of his

body, including right tibia and fibula fractures requiring surgery

and the insertion of a rod, a torn meniscus in the right knee

requiring surgical correction, and fractured vertebrae. 

Plaintiff has brought suit against several defendants--

Reliance Electric Company, Rockwell Automotion, Inc., Riverside

Company, Integrated Power Services, LLC, Baldor Electric Company,

Inta Rota, Inc., and Inta Rota Machine Company, Inc. --as well as 3

John Doe defendants, alleging strict liability pursuant to N.J.S.A.

2A:58C-2 for selling a defective product, and negligent design and

manufacturing of that product. Defendants have moved to dismiss

plaintiff’s claims, arguing that plaintiff has failed to properly

plead his claims to provide them with proper notice of the claims

against them. Specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff’s

blanket claims of strict liability and negligence against seven

companies, without any identification of which company committed

what acts, does not fulfill the requirements under Federal Civil

Procedure Rule 8 and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955

(2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). 

Additionally, defendants contend that plaintiff’s complaint must be

dismissed because plaintiff does not identify the particular

Plaintiff had also named Jewett Automotion, Inc. as a 3

defendant. On August 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a stipulation of

dismissal with prejudice with Jewett Automation, Inc. based on

that entity’s representation that it was not involved in the

sale, manufacture or design of the Slitter machine at issue in

this case.

3

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 386
Slitter machine, or how the Slitter machine was defective or

otherwise involved in plaintiff’s alleged injury, since plaintiff

only alleges that a roll of aluminum fell off the accompanying

cart. As a result, defendants argue that they cannot properly

defend themselves against these generic, broad claims.

In response to defendants’ motions, plaintiff explains that

the Slitter and cart were originally sold to plaintiff’s employer’s

predecessor in 1970. Even though the Slitter and cart have been in

use since their installation, all of the markings and

identification plates have been removed from the product, or have

been rendered illegible. Plaintiff’s employer, Aleris, still

possesses the original manual and documentation, which identifies

Reliance Electric Company and Inta Rota Machine Company. That

documentation, however, does not specify those companies’ roles in

the design, manufacture or sale of the Slitter and cart. Based on

that documentation, plaintiff has named these two entities as

defendants.

With regard to the other defendants, Rockwell Automotion,

Inc., Riverside Company, Integrated Power Services, LLC, Baldor

Electric Company, Inta Rota, Inc., plaintiff’s counsel’s research

has revealed these entities are successors-in-interest to the

companies named in the documents from the 1970s. Thus, plaintiff

has named these entities as defendants as well. Moreover, due to

the uncertainty of what company designed, manufactured and sold the

4

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 387
Slitter and cart, plaintiff has named John Doe defendants to

protect his claims should it be determined that an unnamed entity

was involved.

 In opposition to defendants’ motion challenging the substance

of his complaint, plaintiff argues that at this stage of the case

and with the information he possesses, his complaint meets the

pleading requirements. Furthermore, plaintiff argues that because

only defendants possess the information regarding which entities

designed, manufactured and sold the Slitter and cart, the discovery

process will quickly resolve those issues.

When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded

allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347,

351 (3d Cir. 2005). It is well settled that a pleading is

sufficient if it contains “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Under the liberal federal pleading rules, it is not

necessary to plead evidence, and it is not necessary to plead all

the facts that serve as a basis for the claim. Bogosian v. Gulf

Oil Corp., 562 F.2d 434, 446 (3d Cir. 1977). However, “[a]lthough

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to

set forth an intricately detailed description of the asserted basis

5

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 388
for relief, they do require that the pleadings give defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which

it rests.” Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147,

149-50 n.3 (1984) (quotation and citation omitted). 

A district court, in weighing a motion to dismiss, asks “‘not

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim.’” 

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 n.8 (2007) (quoting

Scheuer v. Rhoades, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“Our decision in Twombly

expounded the pleading standard for ‘all civil actions’ . . . .”);

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (“Iqbal

. . . provides the final nail-in-the-coffin for the ‘no set of

facts’ standard that applied to federal complaints before

Twombly.”). 

Following the Twombly/Iqbal standard, the Third Circuit has

instructed a two-part analysis in reviewing a complaint under Rule

12(b)(6). First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should

be separated; a district court must accept all of the complaint's

well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal

conclusions. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at

1950). Second, a district court must then determine whether the

facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the

plaintiff has a “‘plausible claim for relief.’” Id. (quoting

6

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 389
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950). A complaint must do more than allege

the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. Id.; see also Phillips v.

County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating that

the “Supreme Court's Twombly formulation of the pleading standard

can be summed up thus: ‘stating . . . a claim requires a complaint

with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest’ the required

element. This ‘does not impose a probability requirement at the

pleading stage,’ but instead ‘simply calls for enough facts to

raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence

of’ the necessary element”). A court need not credit either “bald

assertions” or “legal conclusions” in a complaint when deciding a

motion to dismiss. In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114

F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997). The defendant bears the burden

of showing that no claim has been presented. Hedges v. U.S., 404

F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v.

Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)).

Here, defendants have been put on notice that plaintiff claims

that they, as the entity or entities that designed, manufactured

and sold the Slitter and cart to Aleris’s predecessor in 1970,

caused his injuries. Defendants have also been put on notice that

plaintiff’s injuries were sustained when a roll of aluminum, which

had just been processed through the Slitter and transferred to the

accompanying cart, fell onto him. Even though defendants complain

that plaintiff has not indicated each of their specific involvement

with the Slitter and cart, they know whether or not they were part

7

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 390
of the Slitter’s design, manufacture or sale. Moreover, although

defendants complain that plaintiff has not explained the Slitter

and cart’s defect, they are aware that plaintiff sustained injuries

from an aluminum roll during the Slitter processing, and that the

intended outcome of the Slitter process is not for the processed

metal to fall onto the machine’s operator. While we take the 4

Twombly/Iqbal standard seriously and consider this matter a close

call, the facts as pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint raise a

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to prove

plaintiff’s strict liability and negligent design and manufacture

claims.

Should the discovery process show that none of these

defendants were involved with the Slitter and its cart, or that 5

plaintiff’s injuries did not result from a design or manufacturing

defect, defendants may then move for judgment in their favor. At

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s injury was sustained when 4

the aluminum fell off the cart, and that plaintiff has not

indicated how the Slitter was involved. At this point,

plaintiff’s allegations that the Slitter and cart units, used

conjunctively, were defective and caused his injuries are

sufficient to state a viable claim. Defendants may assert

defenses on this basis, or otherwise move for judgment in their

favor should discovery reveal information to discredit

plaintiff’s position.

Information as to the entity responsible for the machine’s 5

design, manufacture and sale should readily be determined during

the early stages of discovery, and should quickly resolve the

identification issues. If, however, the resolution of these

issues proves to be more complicated, that further demonstrates

that plaintiff could not have been any more specific in his

complaint at the initial pleading stage. 

8

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 391
this point, however, to credit defendants’ arguments for the

dismissal of plaintiff’s claims would require plaintiff to have had

the benefit of discovery prior to the filing his complaint. Of

course some investigation must be undertaken prior to the filing of

a complaint, but where it is evident that a plaintiff has gathered

sufficient information to plead facts that, if proven true, would

support viable claims, such a standard is unreasonable and not

contemplated by the Rules or Twombly/Iqbal.

Consequently, defendants’ motions to dismiss will be denied

without prejudice to their right to file subequent motions to

dismiss or for judgment in their favor should they have a proper

basis to do so in the future. An appropriate Order will be 6

entered.

Date: March 30, 2011 s/ Noel L. Hillman 

At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

Defendants have alternatively requested that plaintiff file 6

a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). 

Because the Court has found plaintiff’s current complaint to be

sufficient, there is no need to require plaintiff to file an

amended pleading.

9

Case 1:10-cv-03942-NLH-AMD Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 392