Weber v. Ameriscape

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 25-cv-2099
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Termont Superior Court Filed 09/10/25 Washington

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Washington Unit Case No. 25-CV-02099 65 State Street

Montpelier VT 05602 802-828-2091 www.vermontjudiciary.org Parker Weber v. Ameriscape Inc, et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION Title: Motion to Dismiss (Motion: 1) Filer: Thomas J. Fay Filed Date: July 21, 2025

The motion is DENIED IN PART.

Defendant Brassworks seeks to be dismissed from the present litigation due

to its alleged non-involvement in the underlying collision. The Court finds that this

this motion, while going beyond the pleadings is appropriate at this stage of the

case. Nevertheless, the Motion to Dismiss is Denied in part, and the Court directs

the parties to establish a schedule for limited discovery and additional briefing.

I. Factual Background

On April 11, 2024, Satnam Singh, an operator for 13871851 Canada, Inc.

transported a shipment of mulch in 2019 Freightliner Cascadia tractor trailer from

SBC Cedar, Inc. in Quebec City, Quebec to Bisbee Hardware in Waitsfield, Vermont. Entry Regarding Motion Page lof5 25-CV-02099 Parker Weber v. Ameriscape Inc, et al The purchaser of the shipment was Ameriscape, Inc. While travelling down Route

100 in Duxbury, Vermont, Mr. Singh is alleged to have crossed the center line and

struck a 2015 Subaru Crosstrek, killing its operator, Rosetta Weber.

Plaintiff has filed the present negligence and wrongful death action against

the mulch producer (SBC Cedar), the buyer (Ameriscape, Inc.), and the hardware

store where delivery was to occur (Bisbee Hardware).

Plaintiff has also filed this action against Brassworks, a Rhode Island

fireplace company, on the basis that the bill of lading associated with this shipment

listed Brassworks as the carrier. Brassworks contends that this is an error and has

submitted an affidavit stating that they have never made a delivery in Vermont, that

they do not have a common carrier license, and that they do not have a 2019

Freightliner tractor trailer. Brassworks also states that their only Department of

Transportation number was associated with a liftgate truck that they sold in

February 2024. Effectively Brassworks states that they had nothing to do with Mr.

Singh, SBC Cedar, Bisbee Hardware, Ameriscape, or the shipment at issue.

Brassworks also notes that the packing slip listed "Blackbird" as the transporter,

which corresponds to 13871851 Canada, Inc., the owner of the 2019 Freightliner.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 5 25-CV-02099 Parker Weber v. Ameriscape Inc, et al Plaintiff opposes Brassworks dismissal by pointing to the bill of lading and

noting that Brassworks has a DOT number. Plaintiff contends that this basic

pleading is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss at this stage of the case.

Legal Analysis

Defendant Brassworks' motion to dismiss goes beyond the pleadings by

introducing an affidavit that puts forward several facts that are not part of Plaintiff's

complaint. A motion to dismiss is generally limited to the facts within the pleadings

or documents referenced and incorporated into the pleadings. It assumes all well-

pled facts as true for the purpose of the motion. Co/by v. Umbrella /nc., 2008 VT 20,

15.

Nevertheless, Rule 12(b) permits the Court to convert a motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b)(6) into Cca motion for summary judgment so long as it allows all

parties to have a reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to

such a motion by Rule 56. V.R.C.P. 13(b). Such an opportunity includes an

"adequate time for discovery." 7own of Victory v. State, 174 Vt. 539, 543-44 (2002)

(mem.).

In this case, Defendant Brassworks' motion raises a critical question: Did

Brassworks have any connection to the underlying incident, or was their name put

on the bill of lading in error, If it was added in error, then Brassworks is entitled to

Entry Regarding Motion Page 3 of 5 25-CV-02099 Parker Weber v. Ameriscape Inc, et al an early dismissal from the present matter. If not, they should remain a party. Such

a fundamental question appears to the Court to be an important threshold issue. If

Plaintiff has named the wrong carrier, then Plaintiff should want to correct this error

as well for fear of motions to dismiss for lack of a necessary party.

To this end, Defendant’s immediate Motion to Dismiss is Denied in part as it

does not meet the standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions on the pleadings. This is

because the purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is “to test the

law of the claim, not the facts which support it.” Brigham v. State of Vermont, 2005

VT 105, ¶ 11 (quoting Powers v. Office of Child Support, 173 Vt. 390, 395 (2002)).

However, the Court does not dismiss this motion outright but will convert it

into a motion for summary judgment. Based on this decision, Plaintiff shall consult

with Defendant Brassworks and shall submit within 21 days a schedule for the

following:

1) A timeline for discovery on this issue of whether Brassworks was involved in

the underlying incident.

2) A timeline for responding to Defendant’s motion with any additional

information.

3) A timeline for Brassworks to reply to any additional filings from Plaintiff.

Entry Regarding Motion Page 4 of 5 25-CV-02099 Parker Weber v. Ameriscape Inc, et al This schedule shall be separate from any ADR schedule filed between Plaintiff and

the other parties, and it shall be limited to discovery concerning Brassworks’

connection to the incident. Once this schedule is completed, the Court will take

Brassworks’ motion under consideration through the lens of Rule 56. Skiff v. South

Burlington School District, 2018 VT 117, ¶ 2, n.1.

So Ordered.

Electronically signed on 9/9/2025 7:19 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________ Daniel Richardson Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 5 of 5 25-CV-02099 Parker Weber v. Ameriscape Inc, et al