![]() ![]() "Notably absent from these repeated allegations in the complaint is any indication as to how or where the fire started or how the implicated products were defective," Maguire and Copeland wrote. Maguire and Copeland responded that the city is making a "shotgun" complaint that fails to state what each defendant did to start the fire. ![]() In a reply April 22, the city stated again that the city's damages were due to a direct result result of Scranton Manufacturing's defective product. "When a case has multiple defendants it is especially important that the allegations make it clear which parties are alleged to have committed particular acts that give rise to a claim," Scranton Manufacturing attorneys Michael Maguire and Brandon Copeland wrote in the motion to dismiss. An April 8 motion to dismiss the case filed by Scranton Manufacturing attorneys stated the city failed to make clear which tort the city sued each party under. Many of the claims in the city's lawsuit are repeated against most of the companies named. The 20-count lawsuit alleged the parties breached their contract with the city, acted negligently and violated the truck's warranty. Like Elliott and the other four companies named in the suit, the city alleged Scranton Manufacturing failed to properly test components of the compaction system. The suit alleged the compaction mechanism manufactured by Scranton was designed in a way which failed to prevent a fire. Scranton Manufacturing Company, based in Scranton, Iowa, manufactures trash removal products under several brand names.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |