Lawsuite against Target- court cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Lawsuite against crisscross- court cases - Essay Exampleunds that the charges against it could be dismissed because it was only a nominal defendant, exerting no significant control over the design and patch up of a defective product. However Tabish filed a motion to remand the case to the Hannepin County District Court.The decision in this case was in support of the Plaintiff. The Court held that Targets argument that it was a non-manufacturer defendant and therefore entitled to dismissal of the charges against it, would non hold good because Tabish had also filed for damages against implied warranties of fitness and mercantibility. Dismissal is required only in cases where the suit is filed on the basis of only strict liability claims. As a result, the ruling of the Court effectively held that the charges against Target would not be dismissed and Target remained a viable defendant rather than a nominal party and Tabish was entitled to seek relief from Target.Kenneth Tabish, Plai ntiff, v. Target Corporation, ticklish Corporation, Impact Resource Group, Inc., National Product Services Acquisition Corporation, and John Does I-X, Defendants.Civ. No. 07-2303 (RHK/JSM)CORE TERMS bicycle, removal, nominal, amount in controversy, manufacturer, strict-liability, in-state, defective product, subject to dismissal, non-manufacturer, implied-warranty, contravened, novelty, removable, diversity jurisdiction, principal place of business, frontFor Impact Resource Group, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, National Product Services Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants Jessica R Wymore , LEAD ATTORNEY, Stich, Angell, Kreidler & Dodge, P.A., Mpls, MN US.Plaintiff Kenneth Tabish commenced this personal-injury challenge in Minnesota state court *2against (among others) Huffy Corporation (Huffy) and Target Corporation (Target), the manufacturer and distributor, respectively, of an allegedly defective bicycle. Target removed the action to this Court on May 15, 2007, asserting diversity jurisdiction.