This case was last updated from PACER on 09/18/2021 at 08:34:00 (UTC).

Rodgers et al v. Biddeford Blankets, LLC et al

Case Summary

Sandra Lea and Richard Allen Rodgers, (Individually, “Sandra” and “Richard” and collectively, “Rodgers” or “Plaintiffs”), represented by David B. Mour of David B. Mour, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Biddeford Blankets, LLC (“Biddeford”) and Target Corporation (“Target”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking punitive damages and other relief for defective condition and/or unreasonably dangerous condition of the blanket manufactured by Defendants. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Western District of Tennessee with Judges Mark S. Norris and Tu M. Pham presiding.

 

Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Sandra’s injuries were proximately caused by the defective condition of the Blanket and/or the unreasonably dangerous condition of the Blanket, all of which was caused by the negligence of Biddeford, and/or Biddeford is strictly liable for any injuries caused by such condition and or situation and Target is strictly liable for selling a consumer product to a consumer which it knew or should have known was defective and/or unreasonably dangerous.

 

In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that, “The Blanket was in a defective condition at the time it was designed, manufactured, marketed, sold and supplied to Target by Biddeford and at the time it was sold by Target to Sandra, and the fact it was in such condition at the time it left Biddeford’s possession and control made the Blanket unreasonably dangerous; to-wit, a defect and/or flaw in the design and/or manufacture in the Blanket allowed the Blanket or some component thereof to ignite despite representations made to the public by Biddeford that such an event could and would not occur, the safety features of the Blanket touted to the public by Biddeford, to-wit, that the electrical power to the Blanket would shut off if it became to hot, did not function and/or failed.”

 

Plaintiffs also alleged that, “The Blanket, which was used by Sandra as above described, failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected by Sandra or any other consumer, in light of its nature and intended function, i.e., no consumer, Sandra included, would expect a properly designed electric blanket, used normally and properly, to ignite and cause a fire.”

 

Further, Plaintiffs alleged that, “Sandra was unaware of the defects in and to and the unreasonably dangerous condition of the blanket at the time she used it, and her use of the Blanket was in a normal manner for the purpose for which the Blanket was intended, designed, manufactured, marketed, sold and used.”

 

There are five claims for relief laid down by Plaintiffs. The first claim for relief is for an alleged design defect. The second claim for relief is for alleged negligence. The third claim is for alleged breach of express and implied warranties. The fourth claim is for alleged misrepresentation/failure to warn and the fifth claim for relief is for the alleged violation of 2016 Tennessee Code, title 47, chapter 18-consumer protection.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiffs have requested the court to pass a judgment on all counts against both Defendants, in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for their damages, in sums not less than the amount totalling to more than $800,000 under different heads, along with pre and post judgment interests and attorneys’ fees and costs as permitted by the 2016 Tennessee Code, Title 47, Chapter 18, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-02584

  • Filing Date:

    09/17/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Mark S. Norris

Referral Judge

Tu M. Pham

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Sandra Lea Rodgers

Richard Allen Rodgers

Defendants

Biddeford Blankets, LLC

Target Corporation

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

David B Mour

Attorney at DAVID B. MOUR

513 S. Second Street

Louisville, KY 40202

 

Court Documents

#2

(#2) Judge Mark S. Norris and Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham added. (agj) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

1 #3

Summons

1 #2

Summons

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATNWDC-3704051), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Summons)(Mour, David) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) COURTESY NOTICE: Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, document #1 Complaint filed by Richard Allen Rodgers, Sandra Lea Rodgers has been filed. For future reference, please note the civil cover sheet has a hand-written signature and not the required electronic signature. Please refer to the #ECF User Manual and #ECF Policies and Procedures. Filer is not required to resubmit document. (agj) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.73, and Local Rule 72.1, this Court has designated the Magistrate Judges of this District to conduct trials and otherwise dispose of any civil case that is filed in this Court. Your decision to consent, or not consent, to the referral of your case to a United States Magistrate Judge for trial and entry of a final judgment must be entirely voluntary. The judge or magistrate judge to whom the case has been assigned will not be informed of your decision unless all parties agree that the case may be referred to a magistrate judge for these specific purposes. A less than unanimous decision will not be communicated by this office to either the judge or magistrate judge. The consent form is available on the courts website at https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/forms-and-applications.php (agj) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Standard track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (agj) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • Docket(#3) NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH PLAN FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): Pursuant to Section to 2.1 of the ADR Plan, all civil cases filed on or after Sept. 1, 2014, shall be referred automatically for ADR. For compliance requirements, refer to the ADR Plan at: http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/ADRPlan.pdf (agj) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Judge Mark S. Norris and Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham added. (agj) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATNWDC-3704051), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Summons)(Mour, David) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Biddeford Blankets, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer David B. Mour