ST. LOUIS – A federal judge in Missouri denied a plaintiff's request that sanctions be levied against the defendant's counsel, who asked the court to reconsider previous rejections of motions that contended the statute of limitations was over.
Despite avoiding sanctions, the defendant's counsel failed in that bid to get the case dismissed on grounds that the judge's ruling was not based on manifest errors of law or fact.
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross for the Missouri Eastern District made his rulings on March 27 in Missouri resident Gregory Burdess' complaint against Cottrell, Inc. The plaintiff alleged injuries that first showed symptoms in April 2013. Burdess works as a car hauler and claims his injuries were caused by an alleged defective tie-down system he uses while towing cars on a truck. He filed his suit in May 2017 against the plaintiff, a manufacturer of securing rigs to load and transport autos by truck.
“The plaintiffs' request for sanctions is unreasonable under these circumstances,” Judge Ross said in his order. “Cottrell's (defendant’s) second motion for reconsideration amounts to a third motion to dismiss based on a theory which had been twice rejected."
Burdess was employed as a car hauler in Missouri. He alleges his injuries include bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome, a shoulder injury caused by specific and repetitive trauma. The complaint said that in April 2013 Burdess awoke in an Illinois hotel room early in the morning and could not feel his arms from numbness.
In his complaint Burdess asked for damages in excess of $75,000. He alleged that the rigs lacked reasonably safe vehicle securement systems, lacked adequate warnings to sufficiently warn plaintiff the rigs were not properly designed or manufactured, and required excessive force to operate and to compress vehicle suspensions to load.
The defendant moved for a summary judgement from the court arguing that the claim was time-barred. Judge Ross denied the motion, saying that Burdess's injury was not "capable of ascertainment" until he was examined by his Missouri doctor.
Attorneys for Cottrell sought a reconsideration of the judgement claiming an “error of law.” In January 2019 the Court denied the request for reconsideration.
In his March 27 ruling, Judge Ross said that his order denying summary judgment concluded that "a reasonably prudent person waking up in the middle of the night with numbness in his arms would not conclude that the numbness was the result of an actionable injury. Missouri's five-year statute of limitations governs, and the plaintiff’s May 6, 2017, complaint was therefore timely filed. The Court concludes that its ruling was not the result of manifest errors of law.”
The motion for reconsideration was denied on those grounds.
Judge Ross denied a request for sanctions sought by the plaintiff against Cottrell’s attorney for pursuing reconsideration of the case and causing a needless increase in court costs to the plaintiff, saying it was unreasonable.
U.S. District Court St. Louis Eastern District case number 4:l 7-CV-01515 JAR