IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
UTAH PHYSICIANS FOR A MEMORANDUM DECISION AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, INC., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REPLEAD OR DEEM Plaintiff, ADMITTED v. Case No. 2:19-cv-0628 DBB DBP TAP WORLDWIDE, LLC (d/b/a 4 WHEEL DRIVE HARDWARE, District Judge David Barlow TRANSAMERICAN AUTO PARTS, UNITED WEB SALES, 4 WHEEL Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead PARTS, 4 WHEEL PARTS PERFORMANCE CENTER, and TRANSAMERICAN WHOLESALE),
Defendants.
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) moves the court for an order to compel Defendants (collectively TAP) to replead its answer or alternatively, deem admitted certain allegations in UPHE’s Complaint.1 As set forth below, the court DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND UPHE alleges TAP violated the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B), by selling and or installing in Utah certain exhaust system kits, race catalytic converters, and electronic reprogrammers as “defeat parts.” Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint March 15, 2022, and Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on March 28, 2022. Plaintiff’s motion was filed prior to the Amended Answer. The Amended Answer however does not change the language of the admissions, denials and disclaimers that Plaintiff’s assert are improper. Thus
1 This case is referred to the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. (b)(1)(A) to hear and determine all nondispositive pretrial matters. (ECF No. 9, 18.) there is no reason to distinguish between the responses in the original Answer and Amended Answer for purposes of this motion. STANDARD Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the pleading and response
standards. A pleading is to contain a short and plain statement concerning jurisdiction, a claim or claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. In response, Rule 8(b) provides that a party is to “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it: and admit or deny the allegations.” Id. 8(b). In addition to a denial or admission, a party may also respond that it “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation,” which has the effect of a denial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5). “Rule 8(b) therefore permits only three possible responses to a complaint: (1) admission; (2) denial; or (3) a disclaimer statement in compliance with Rule 8(b)’s provision for lack of knowledge or information, which is deemed a denial.” Lane v. Page, 272 F.R.D. 581, 602 (D.N.M. 2011). One way a defendant may comply with these requirements
is through a general denial. Rule 8(b)(3) provides: General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) requires claims and defenses asserted by attorneys to be based on “the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). This standard is “an objective one of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 534, 111 S. Ct. 922, 924 (1991); see also Lundahl v. Home Depot, Inc., 594 F. App'x 453, 455 (10th Cir. 2014) (adopting the same Rule 11 standard of objective reasonableness under the circumstances.). DISCUSSION UPHE takes specific issue with responses to parts of three paragraphs in its Complaint, paragraphs 73, 75, and 77. Attached to Plaintiffs motion is a chart outlining the paragraphs and TAP’s responses. For ease of reference the court reproduces the chart here.
Paragraph Compl. § 73. With a. The exhaust system | a. Defendant denies that all respect to each exhaust | has no CARB EO. products it sells are without a system kit listed CARB EO and further demes separately by part that any product offered for number in Tables A and sale or sold in the state of B, acquired from the 4 Utah requires a CARB EO. Wheel Parts website. Defendant denies the rest of plaintiff alleges the Paragraph 73.a. following:' = i. TAP Worldwide has sold | 1. Defendant affirmatively the exhaust system lat to states that it has sold to consumers in Utah. consumers certain exhaust systems in Tables A and B for sale in the state of Utah. k. TAP Worldwide has k. Defendant is without installed the exhaust system | knowledge and information lat in one or more vehicles | sufficient to form a belief as in Utah. to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 73-k and, therefore, denies the same. m. TAP Worldwide has no | m. Defendant is without evidence from the exhaust | knowledge and information system kit manufacturer or | sufficient to form a belief as an environmental control to the truth of the allegations agency that the installation | m Paragraph and, and use of the exhaust therefore, denies the same. system kit would not adversely affect the emissions performance of each motor vehicle into which it is designed to be installed.
Paragraph Compl. § 75. With a. The catalytic converter | a. Defendant denies that all respect to each “race” has no CARB EQ or Proof | products it sells are without a catalytic converter listed | of Notification to EPA CARB EO and further denies sepatately by part Demonstrating Compliance | that any product offered for number in Table C_ with EPA’s 1986 sale or sold im the state of acquired from the 4 Aftermarket Catalytic Utah requires a CARB EO. Wheel Parts website, Converter (AMCC) Policy. | Defendant denies the rest of plamtuiff alleges the Paragraph 75.a. followmg: ce. TAP Worldwide has no | c. Defendant is without evidence from the catalytic | knowledge and information converter manufacturer or | sufficient to form a belief as an environmental control to the truth of the allegations agency that the installation | and legal conclusions in and use of the catalytic Paragraph 75.c and, converter would not therefore, demes the same. adversely affect the emissions performance of each motor vehicle into which it is designed to be installed. g. TAP Worldwide has g. Defendant affirmatively sold the catalytic converter | states that it has sold certain to consumers in Utah. catalytic converters to consumers in Utah. Defendant demes the other allegations of Paragraph 73.2. i. TAP Worldwide has i. Defendant is without installed the catalytic knowledge and information couverter in one or more sufficient to form a belief as vehicles in Utah. to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75.1 and, therefore, demies the same.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
UTAH PHYSICIANS FOR A MEMORANDUM DECISION AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, INC., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REPLEAD OR DEEM Plaintiff, ADMITTED v. Case No. 2:19-cv-0628 DBB DBP TAP WORLDWIDE, LLC (d/b/a 4 WHEEL DRIVE HARDWARE, District Judge David Barlow TRANSAMERICAN AUTO PARTS, UNITED WEB SALES, 4 WHEEL Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead PARTS, 4 WHEEL PARTS PERFORMANCE CENTER, and TRANSAMERICAN WHOLESALE),
Defendants.
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) moves the court for an order to compel Defendants (collectively TAP) to replead its answer or alternatively, deem admitted certain allegations in UPHE’s Complaint.1 As set forth below, the court DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND UPHE alleges TAP violated the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B), by selling and or installing in Utah certain exhaust system kits, race catalytic converters, and electronic reprogrammers as “defeat parts.” Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint March 15, 2022, and Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on March 28, 2022. Plaintiff’s motion was filed prior to the Amended Answer. The Amended Answer however does not change the language of the admissions, denials and disclaimers that Plaintiff’s assert are improper. Thus
1 This case is referred to the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. (b)(1)(A) to hear and determine all nondispositive pretrial matters. (ECF No. 9, 18.) there is no reason to distinguish between the responses in the original Answer and Amended Answer for purposes of this motion. STANDARD Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the pleading and response
standards. A pleading is to contain a short and plain statement concerning jurisdiction, a claim or claims showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. In response, Rule 8(b) provides that a party is to “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it: and admit or deny the allegations.” Id. 8(b). In addition to a denial or admission, a party may also respond that it “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation,” which has the effect of a denial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5). “Rule 8(b) therefore permits only three possible responses to a complaint: (1) admission; (2) denial; or (3) a disclaimer statement in compliance with Rule 8(b)’s provision for lack of knowledge or information, which is deemed a denial.” Lane v. Page, 272 F.R.D. 581, 602 (D.N.M. 2011). One way a defendant may comply with these requirements
is through a general denial. Rule 8(b)(3) provides: General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) requires claims and defenses asserted by attorneys to be based on “the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). This standard is “an objective one of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 534, 111 S. Ct. 922, 924 (1991); see also Lundahl v. Home Depot, Inc., 594 F. App'x 453, 455 (10th Cir. 2014) (adopting the same Rule 11 standard of objective reasonableness under the circumstances.). DISCUSSION UPHE takes specific issue with responses to parts of three paragraphs in its Complaint, paragraphs 73, 75, and 77. Attached to Plaintiffs motion is a chart outlining the paragraphs and TAP’s responses. For ease of reference the court reproduces the chart here.
Paragraph Compl. § 73. With a. The exhaust system | a. Defendant denies that all respect to each exhaust | has no CARB EO. products it sells are without a system kit listed CARB EO and further demes separately by part that any product offered for number in Tables A and sale or sold in the state of B, acquired from the 4 Utah requires a CARB EO. Wheel Parts website. Defendant denies the rest of plaintiff alleges the Paragraph 73.a. following:' = i. TAP Worldwide has sold | 1. Defendant affirmatively the exhaust system lat to states that it has sold to consumers in Utah. consumers certain exhaust systems in Tables A and B for sale in the state of Utah. k. TAP Worldwide has k. Defendant is without installed the exhaust system | knowledge and information lat in one or more vehicles | sufficient to form a belief as in Utah. to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 73-k and, therefore, denies the same. m. TAP Worldwide has no | m. Defendant is without evidence from the exhaust | knowledge and information system kit manufacturer or | sufficient to form a belief as an environmental control to the truth of the allegations agency that the installation | m Paragraph and, and use of the exhaust therefore, denies the same. system kit would not adversely affect the emissions performance of each motor vehicle into which it is designed to be installed.
Paragraph Compl. § 75. With a. The catalytic converter | a. Defendant denies that all respect to each “race” has no CARB EQ or Proof | products it sells are without a catalytic converter listed | of Notification to EPA CARB EO and further denies sepatately by part Demonstrating Compliance | that any product offered for number in Table C_ with EPA’s 1986 sale or sold im the state of acquired from the 4 Aftermarket Catalytic Utah requires a CARB EO. Wheel Parts website, Converter (AMCC) Policy. | Defendant denies the rest of plamtuiff alleges the Paragraph 75.a. followmg: ce. TAP Worldwide has no | c. Defendant is without evidence from the catalytic | knowledge and information converter manufacturer or | sufficient to form a belief as an environmental control to the truth of the allegations agency that the installation | and legal conclusions in and use of the catalytic Paragraph 75.c and, converter would not therefore, demes the same. adversely affect the emissions performance of each motor vehicle into which it is designed to be installed. g. TAP Worldwide has g. Defendant affirmatively sold the catalytic converter | states that it has sold certain to consumers in Utah. catalytic converters to consumers in Utah. Defendant demes the other allegations of Paragraph 73.2. i. TAP Worldwide has i. Defendant is without installed the catalytic knowledge and information couverter in one or more sufficient to form a belief as vehicles in Utah. to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75.1 and, therefore, demies the same.
Paragraph Compl. 77. With a. The reprogrammer has | a. Defendant denies that all respect to each no CARB EO. products it sells are without a reprogrammer listed CARB EO and further demes separately by part that any product offered for number in Tables D- sale or sold in the state of J. acquired from the 4 Utah require a CARB EO. Wheel Parts website, Defendant denies the rest of plaintiff alleges the Paragraph 77.a. following: e. TAP Worldwide has no | e. Defendant is without evidence from the knowledge and information reprogrammer sufficient to form a belief as manufacturer or an to the truth of the allegations environmental control in Paragraph 77.e and, agency that the installation | therefore, denies the same. and use of the reprogrammer will not adversely affect the emussions performance of each motor vehicle into which it is designed to be installed. h. TAP Worldwide has h. Defendant affirmatively sold the reprogrammer to states that it has sold certain consumers in Utah. reprogrammers to consumers in Utah. j. TAP Worldwide has j. Defendant is without installed the reprogrammer | knowledge and information imone or more vehiclesin | sufficient to form a belief as Utah. to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 77) and, therefore, denies the same.
(ECF No. 57-1.) Before turning to UPHE’s specific arguments, the court notes that Plaintiff provided TAP with a “template to guide Defendant’s answer to this paragraph, and the similar paragraphs relating to catalytic converters and reprogrammers.” Compl. Attach. 2. While perhaps helpful to what UPHE wanted from Defendant’s Answer, the court finds there is no obligation under any Federal Rule to use the template. In fact, much of Plaintiffs consternation with the Answers
appears related to TAP not using UPHE’s form. Failing to use the form provides no basis to grant Plaintiff’s motion. First, UPHE argues that Defendants response to its allegations that it sold each identified defeat part in Utah, and that each part did not have a CARB EO, is non-responsive and evasive.
Next, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s response that it has insufficient knowledge related to allegations that it installed certain defeat parts in Utah. Defendants respond that it sold “certain exhaust systems” in the tables set forth by UPHE in the Complaint. Defendants also contested whether Utah requires a CARB EO, and that TAP lacked knowledge to determine what parts were installed in Utah. The parties’ dispute centers on the standards required under Rule 8 and 11. TAP asserts its answer complies with the Federal Rules and Plaintiff is misconstruing the requisite standards, in essence raising them, which is further complicated by the sub-paragraphs in the Complaint. The court agrees that Plaintiff is attempting to raise the standard here and finds TAP’s answers function as an (1) admission; (2) denial; or (3) a disclaimer statement in compliance with Rule 8(b)’s provision for lack of knowledge or information.2 For example, while Plaintiff may
disagree, Defendant’s answer that it is without knowledge and information regarding the installed exhaust systems is acceptable under the circumstances in responding to the Complaint. Further details, such as the specific exhaust system kits that may have been installed, is part of the discovery process and not required as a Rule 11’s inquiry requirement. The Rule 11 standard is “an objective one of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Bus. Guides, 498 U.S. at 534.
2 While instructive, Plaintiff’s citations to case law outside the Tenth Circuit are not binding and do not lead the court to alter the standards of Rule 8 and Rule 11. See Bruce v. Anthem Ins. Companies, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-0353-D, 2015 WL 1860002 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2015) (unpublished); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Malibu Canyon Invs., LLC, No. 2:10-cv-00396-KJD, 2012 WL 115577, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2012) (unpublished); Azza Int’l Corp. v. Gas Rsch. Inst., 204 F.R.D. 109, 110 (N.D. Ill. 2001). TAP’s Answer is reasonable under the circumstances of Plaintiff's Complaint with multiple sub- paragraphs and parts. In similar fashion, UPHE asserts TAP’s answer saying it has insufficient knowledge and information to respond to Plaintiffs allegations that Defendant “has no evidence from the part manufacturer or an environmental regulatory agency that the use of each identified part will not adversely affect admissions” does not comply with Rule 8 and Rule 11 standards. Mtn. p. 7, ECF No. 57. Once again, the court finds TAP’s answer reasonable under the circumstances because determining the affect a part has on admissions is a complicated inquiry that likely requires the use of experts and technology. Such an inquiry is not required under Rule 8 and Rule 11 and is better left to discovery. ORDER Although it is clear Plaintiff is not happy with TAP’s Answers, and would have preferred TAP to use Plaintiff's form in responding to its Complaint, the court finds TAP’s Answers reasonable under the circumstances given the complex nature of Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiffs motion therefore is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20 May 2022.
United Stafes Mapistrate Judge