This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Matos (P) was driving a truck carrying concrete. P suffered injuries when the truck rolled over. The truck was allegedly manufactured and sold by D and Mack Truck. P and his wife sued Ds for (1) negligence; (2) breach of the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (3) strict liability; (4) breach of the warranty of merchantability; (5) loss of consortium; and (6) punitive damages. D made a limited appearance to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). That motion was denied. D then moved to dismiss under 12(b)(6) or in the alternative, to strike certain allegations in the complaint pursuant to 12(f) or for a more definite statement pursuant to 12(e).

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.