Page v. Nissan North America Inc et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JACQUELYN PAGE and ROBERT
MITCHELL PAGE, individually and
as next friend of minors O.P and E.P.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-3080-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Pages’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (Doc. 68).
The Court DENIES the motion.
The Court issued Final Judgment in favor of Defendant Artsana USA, Inc.
(Chicco) on March 3, 2026. (Doc. 62). The Pages argue that the Court should set
aside that judgment because (1) the Court improperly applied a heightened pleading
standard, and (2) it did not consider the merits of their claims against Chicco in its
initial dismissal order.1 Both arguments fail.2
First, the Court consistently applied the proper Iqbal/Twombly framework in
its analysis of the Pages’ claims against Chicco.3 To be sure, plaintiffs need not
1 Doc. 68-2 at 1–2, 6.
2 The Pages also suggest that they have now demonstrated in their most recent complaint
against Graco that they can provide sufficient detail to support their products liability claims against
Chicco. Doc. 68-2 at 4–5. But poor lawyering at earlier stages of litigation is insufficient to justify
setting aside the Court’s judgment now.
3 Doc. 25 at 5–8; Doc. 54 at 4.
Case 3:24-cv-03080-X Document 69 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
provide proof or detailed facts at this stage of litigation.4 But “[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.”5 As previously explained, the Pages’ claims against Chicco were conclusory.6
The Court did not apply an improper pleading standard.
Second, the Court’s initial dismissal of the Pages’ claims against Chicco was
not procedural. In its May 5, 2025, Order Dismissing those claims, the Court
analyzed the merits of the Pages’ theories of negligence and strict liability for design
defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn.7 The Court concluded that the
Pages failed to sufficiently plead facts to support those claims.8 This was not a
procedural dismissal for failure to respond. So when the Pages failed to cure the
defects in their complaint, dismissal with prejudice was proper.9
The Court understands the Pages’ frustrations and sympathizes with the pain
they’ve experienced. That said, their ire is best placed with their representation.
The Court DENIES the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2026.
___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
6 Doc. 25 at 5–8; Doc. 54 at 4.
7 Doc. 25 at 5–8.
8 Id.
9 Doc. 54 at 4, 10.
Case 3:24-cv-03080-X Document 69 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>