CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
VICTORIA A. JACKSON, individually and as surviving wife of Daniel A. Jackson, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-5488
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson.
No. 1:15-cv-01180—J. Daniel Breen, Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 29, 2016
Before: MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this diversity case, Daniel A. Jackson (“Mr. Jackson”), the husband of Plaintiff-Appellant Victoria A. Jackson (“Mrs. Jackson” or “Jackson”), died in a car accident on U.S. Highway 70 after he lost control of his 2012 Ford Focus. Mrs. Jackson, who was a passenger in the car, was seriously injured. She now alleges that Defendant-Appellee Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), the manufacturer of their car, was responsible for the accident because it equipped the car with a defective “Electronic Power Assisted Steering” (“EPAS”) system that caused the loss of control. Ford filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Jackson did not adequately plead proximate cause. The district court granted Ford’s motion, and Jackson has appealed. For the reasons stated below, the district court demanded too much of Jackson under the familiar Iqbal and Twombly pleading requirements. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and REMAND the case for further proceedings.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
In re: JOHN T. MCCOY,
Debtor.
   No. 15-8056
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 11-43318—Kay Woods, Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 29, 2016
Before: HARRISON, PRESTON, and WISE, Bankruptcy Appellate Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. John T. McCoy (“debtor”) filed this appeal from the bankruptcy court’s denial of his motion to reopen his chapter 7 case despite no objections being filed. For the reasons stated below, the Panel reverses the bankruptcy court’s ruling.