Jones v. Coors Brewing Co.
This text of 378 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (Jones v. Coors Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Motion," Doc. 5). Plaintiff filed an untimely Response (Doc. 13). As set forth below, the Motion will be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that over the course of three hours, he consumed approximately eight Keystone Ice beers, which are manufactured by Defendant. (Compl., Doc. 1-2, at 4). As a result, Plaintiff alleges he "ended up in jail ... [without] knowing what had transpired" and with a "stab wound to [his] left hand" and a cut on his pointer finger. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff brings one claim, alleging that Defendant failed to warn him "of the dangers of blacking out due to consuming their product." (Id. at 3-4). Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claim with prejudice.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD
"A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state *1134a claim upon which relief can be granted." In determining whether to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer ,
III. ANALYSIS
As noted, Plaintiff's only claim is for failure to warn of the dangers of blacking out associated with over-consumption of an alcoholic beverage. A manufacturer's duty to warn arises when there is a need to inform consumers of dangers of which they are unaware. Cook v. MillerCoors, LLC ,
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED .
2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice .
3. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot .
4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 22, 2019.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
378 F. Supp. 3d 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-coors-brewing-co-flmd-2019.