Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-931 - BROWN v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-931 - BROWN v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al
June 10, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER: Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. [Filing No. 1, at ECF p. 1.] The Court has an independent obligation to ensure that it possesses jurisdiction. See Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007) (emphasizing that the court has an independent duty to determine whether diversity exists). Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint that adequately sets forth the citizenship of both defendants by June 23, 2014. The Amended Complaint shall list each member of BMW NA and trace the citizenship of each of its members through however many layers of partners or members there may be, and it must explain what American corporate form BMW Germany most closely resembles and analyze its citizenship according to that form. Defendants should wait until the Amended Complaint is filed to prepare their answer (see Order for additional information). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/10/2014.(SWM)
August 13, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT: Because Plaintiff still has not properly pled facts to support the existence of this Court's diversity jurisdiction, the Court STRIKES her Amended Complaint, [Filing No. 6], and BMW NA's Answer, [Filing No. 12], and ORDERS Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint by August 25, 2014. Since Plaintiff will need to serve her forthcoming Second Amended Complaint on the Defendants, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the pending motions regarding Plaintiff's alleged failure to properly serve her previous complaints. [Filing No. 13; Filing No. 15.] ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/13/2014.(DW)
September 11, 2014
PDF | More
ENTRY: Accordingly, the Court requests the Magistrate Judge to hold a conference with the parties to determine the most efficient way for the jurisdictional disagreements to be resolved, whether via briefing, a hearing, or otherwise ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/11/2014.(DW)
October 31, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER granting BMW AG's 24 Motion to Dismiss. BMW AG is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (see Order for details). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/31/2014. (SWM)
February 4, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER granting BMW AG's 65 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and DISMISSES Ms. Brown's claims against BMW AG WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/4/2016. (MAC)
March 20, 2017
PDF | More
ane Magnus-Stinson on 3/20/2017. (JRB)ORDER - For the reasons detailed in this order, the Court GRANTS BMW NA's 120 Motion to Exclude All Evidence Related to Human Subject Rollover Demonstrations Conducted by Plaintiff's Counsel and Related Paper. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge J
August 10, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - On September 29, 2012, Plaintiff Marsha R. Brown was driving her 2007 Mini Cooper on a highway when her vehicle went off the road, rolled into a ditch, and landed on its roof. As a result, Ms. Brown sustained a cervical fracture, which left her partially quadriplegic. Ms. Brown filed the underlying cause of action for negligence against Defendant BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA"). [Filing No. 42.] On March 30, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting BMW NA's Motion to Exclude All Evidence Related to Human Subject Rollover Demonstrations Conducted by Plaintiff's Counsel and Related Paper. [Filing No. 136.] Presently pending before the Court is Ms. Brown's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Ruling. [Filing No. 147.] The motion is now ripe of the Court's consideration. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court DENIES Ms. Brown's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Ruling. [Filing No. 147.] (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/10/2017. (APD)
September 22, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY - This matter is before the Court on Defendant BMW of North America, LLC's ("BMW") Motion in Limine Number 2, [Filing No. 141 at 21-24], which the Court took under advisement at the final pretrial conference, [Filing No. 195 at 7]. This products liability matter involves allegations that BMW distributed a defectively designed Mini Cooper, which resulted in enhanced injuries to Plaintiff Marsha Brown when her Mini Cooper rolled over. BMW's Motion seeks to exclude evidence of post-sale design changes to the Mini Cooper. The Court has considered the parties' filings, [Filing No. 141 at 21-24; Filing No. 193 at 2-4], and heard argument during the final pretrial conference. The Court GRANTS BMW's Motion in Limine Number 2 to the extent set forth in this Order. As Ms. Brown observes, Rule 407 expressly permits the admission of subsequent remedial measures if feasibility is disputed. Moreover, as Rule 407 suggests, such evidence is likely to be substantially more probative under Rule 403 if BMW disputes feasibility. At the final pretrial conference, counsel for BMW acknowledged that, at the time Ms. Brown's Mini Cooper was sold, at least one other manufacturer utilized the safety equipment that Ms. Brown contends should have been included in the Mini Cooper. Thus, it appears that BMW is not disputing feasibility at this time. However, "[u]nder the caselaw the feasibility inquiry encompasses a whole slew of interrelated components, including not only the question of the possibility of correction as such but also more nuanced considerations such as the 'economy, practicality and effectiveness' of such corrections." Dewick v. Maytag Corp., 324 F. Supp. 2d 894, 903 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Therefore, should BMW place feasibility, including economic feasibility, in issue at any time, whether by argument, question, or testimony -- either solicited or unsolicited -- Ms. Brown's counsel may ask the Court for relief from this Order. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/22/2017. (APD)