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

Lawsuite against Target- court cases - Essay Example unds that the charges against it could be dismissed because it was only a nominal defendant, exerting no significant control over the design and manufacture 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 Target’s argument that it was a non-manufacturer defendant and therefore entitled to dismissal of the charges against it, would not 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, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Huffy 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, diversity, removable, diversity jurisdiction, principal place of business, front For 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 action in Minnesota state court   [*2]  against (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.