United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Keiser
Corporation's (“Defendant”) Motion for
Summary Judgment .
August 27, 2008, Constantine Varazo (“Plaintiff”)
injured the tip of his ring finger while attempting to move
an exercise “spin” bike manufactured by Keiser
Corporation (“Defendant”). Keiser manufactured
the exercise bike with two different transport mechanisms.
The first mechanism involves lifting the bike and tilting it
back onto its flywheel, as if moving a wheelbarrow. (Dep. of
Dennis Keiser [37.3] (“Keiser Dep.”) 10:24-11:4).
That mechanism is not at issue in this case. The second
mechanism involves raising the front handlebars to deploy two
small wheels in the middle of the bike's base beam. When
the user lowers the bike, the wheels latch in place, causing
the bike to balance on the wheels. This allows the user to
move the bike. (Keiser Dep. at 12:3-14). The second transport
mechanism was developed for LA Fitness. From 2002 through
2006, Defendant distributed to LA Fitness approximately 5,
400 bikes with this second transport mechanism. (Keiser Dep.
time of his injury, Plaintiff was a club boxing instructor at
LA Fitness. (Dep. of Constantine Varazo [32.1] at
22-23). The boxing class met in a large exercise
room where people commonly left equipment, such as exercise
bikes, benches, and mats. (Id. at 40). On August 27,
2008, Plaintiff arrived early at LA Fitness to prepare the
room for his class. (Id. at 31:3). An exercise bike
was left in the middle of the room and Plaintiff decided to
move it to an area along a wall where other bikes were
arranged. (Id. at 29:25-30:2).
Plaintiff attempted to move the bike, the transport wheels
did not drop down. Plaintiff decided to lift the bike and
carry it to the wall. To do so, he bent down and placed his
hand on the bike's center base beam near the small wheel
mechanism. When he placed the bike back down onto the ground,
the wheel mechanism swung shut, severing the tip of his ring
finger. The bike did not have instructions or warnings on it
stating the proper way to move the bike. (Keiser Dep.
November 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint for personal
injuries and damages . The Complaint does not assert
separate causes of action, alleging only that Defendant
“placed a defective product in the stream of commerce,
” and “was negligent in the design and
manufacture” of the bike. (Compl. ¶ 7-8).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's negligence “was
the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and
damages.” Id. The Complaint does not expressly
allege a claim for “failure to warn, ” nor does
the Complaint allege that Plaintiff's injury was a result
of absent or inadequate warnings on the exercise bike.
November 28, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint to adequately allege the citizenship of the
parties for purposes of invoking the Court's jurisdiction
December 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint
. The deficiencies in Plaintiff's original Complaint
were not cured.
December 9, 2016, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to amend
his Complaint to adequately allege the citizenship of the
parties . The Court stated that it “will not allow
Plaintiff any further opportunities to amend.” ( at
December 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint, this time alleging sufficient facts to support the
Court's jurisdiction .
November 16, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary
December 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed his “Supplemental
Clarification of Plaintiff's Claims, ” to
“clarify the Plaintiff's claim that the subject
exercise machine was defective and that his injuries occurred
because of the inadequacy of any warnings on the subject
machine . . . and the lack of any warnings written upon the
machine” to warn users of the risk of injury. ().