Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp. - 596 F. Supp. 2d 821 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Rule:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) permits the joinder of multiple plaintiffs if: (1) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and (2) if any questions of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action.

Facts:

On June 21, 2007, 16 year-old Charles Kehr was riding in the passenger seat of a 2007 Yamaha Rhino in Dutchess County, New York, resulting in Kehr’s injury. On August 20, 2005, 59 year-old Grover Taber was driving a 2005 Yamaha Rhino in Oswego County, New York, when the vehicle tipped over, resulting in Taber’s injury. Bruce Kehr, on behalf of his son Charles Kehr, a minor, and husband and wife, Grover and Shirley Taber ("Plaintiffs") filed the present lawsuit against Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A, Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America, Yamaha Motor Co., LTD. ("Yamaha") seeking damages for strict product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, violation of the CD Consumer Product Safety Act, violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349, and loss of consortium. Yamaha filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or sever the claims of the Taber plaintiffs, arguing that because the claims of the Taber plaintiffs arose out of an incident that took place n Oswego County, New York, a location within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, it should be dismissed as improperly venued under 28 U.S.C. § 1406.

Issue:

Should the court grant Yamaha’s motion to dismiss, transfer, or sever the claims of the Taber plaintiffs? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Yamaha’s motion to dismiss, transfer, or sever the claims of Taber plaintiffs was denied. The court held that the venue was not improper under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391 because Yamaha was a corporation that transacted business in the district. Also, as plaintiffs had moved to transfer and coordinate the case with actions pending in 34 district courts around the country under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1407, there was no sense in entangling yet another district court in litigation that could soon be transferred to a yet-to-be-determined multidistrict litigation venue. Further, although plaintiffs' injuries arose out of two separate accidents, their allegations of a common design defect in the all-terrain utility vehicles satisfied the requirement of logically related transactions for the purposes of permissive joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, and the manufacturer's motion to sever was denied.