author: BRIMMER, District Judge.

text:
    Andrea DWORKIN, a citizen of New York; Priscilla Moree, a Wyoming citizen, individually and in her representative capacity of the Jackson, Wyoming Chapter of the National Organization for Women; and Judith Fouts, a Wyoming citizen, individually and in her representative capacity of the Wyoming Chapter of the National Organization for Women, Plaintiffs, v. HUSTLER MAGAZINE, INC., a California corporation; Larry Flynt, a citizen of California, Inland Empire Periodicals, an Oregon corporation; and Park Place Market, a Wyoming corporation, Defendants.
    No. C85-0111-B.
    United States District Court, D. Wyoming.
    June 18, 1985.

      G.L. Spence, Gary L. Shockey, Spence, Moriarity & Schuster, Jackson, Wyo., for plaintiffs.
    John A. Sundahl, Julie Nye Tiedeken, Godfrey & Sundahl, Cheyenne, Wyo., Alan L. Isaacman, Cooper, Epstein & Hurewitz, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendants.
   ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

BRIMMER, District Judge.

The above-entitled matter came before the Court pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The Court, having reviewed the pleadings, the briefs, and the evidence offered, and being fully advised in the premises, FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

Plaintiffs originally filed this matter in state court, specifically the Ninth Judicial District, Teton County, Wyoming, and defendants removed it to this Court based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend that the case was improperly removed, and now ask the Court to remand the case to the state court.

Broken down to its essence, this case involves a suit filed by Andrea Dworkin against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine alleging libel and defamation. Ms. Dworkin is a New York resident, Mr. Flynt resides in California, and Hustler is a California corporation. However, two Wyoming members of the National Organization for Women, Priscilla Moree and Judith Fouts, as plaintiffs, have also sued, based on the same allegedly libelous material, for interference with their rights as guaranteed under the Wyoming Constitution, and Inland Empire Periodicals, an Oregon corporation, and Park Place Market, Inc., a Wyoming corporation, were joined as defendants for distributing Hustler. In her Ninth Cause of Action, Ms. Dworkin sued Mr. Flynt and Hustler for invasion of her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Court is cognizant of the plaintiffs’ choice of the State Court as their forum. If there were any possible way that this Court could respect that choice and remand this case, it would do so. This Court has no need or desire to try another case, such as this one. While it is settled law that the plaintiffs are the masters of their claims, they did not have to state a federal claim if they did not want to. They also cannot use “artful pleading” to avoid removal jurisdiction. C. Wright, Law of the Federal Courts, 4th Ed., p. 215.

As their first ground for removal, defendants contend that Ms. Dworkin’s Ninth Cause of Action constitutes a federal question, thus giving the Court jurisdiction over’ all plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and (c). Ms. Dworkin’s Ninth Cause of Action reads in part as follows:

Andrea Dworkin’s Ninth Cause of Action against Defendants Hustler and Larry Flynt
(Invasion of Constitutional Rights)
3. As a citizen of the United States, Andrea Dworkin is guaranteed equal protection of the laws and judicial decisions in this country. She is entitled to protection under the United States Constitution and its amendments on an equal footing with any other citizen or with any other entity, including corporations such as Hustler Magazine, Inc.
4. Specifically, Andrea Dworkin is entitled to the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to exercise her freedom of speech. Moreover, under the same Constitutional Amendment, she is entitled to protection of the laws to allow her to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
5. Andrea Dworkin has chosen to exercise her rights of free speech, assembly, and governmental petition through her writings and through her activities to bring about passage of laws which define pornography as a violation of the civil rights of women.
6. The defendant Hustler Magazine, Inc. has, through its publication of the materials in Exhibits A, B and C attached hereto, mounted an intentional, recurring, malicious attack on Andrea Dworkin designed to intimidate Andrea Dworkin into abandoning her rights of free speech, rights to assemble, and rights to petition the government for political change and to chill the exercise of said rights and to still Andrea Dworkin.
7. The First Amendment to the Constitution was never intended to be, nor has it ever been interpreted as, an affirmative weapon against the citizens of the United States. It has formed a shield for pornographers, such as Hustler, to hide behind, but has never been intended as a sword for pornographers to use on citizens such as Andrea Dworkin.
8. The continued malicious attacks on the character of Andrea Dworkin by Hustler under the guise of freedom of speech have amounted to an affirmative campaign on the part of Hustler magazine to thwart the political and social activities of Andrea Dworkin, as well as to silence her exercise of her right to free speech.

A case arises under the Constitution of the United States “if it clearly and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of ... [the Constitution] ... which is determinative of the resulting judgment.” Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Johnson, 586 F.2d 1375, 1381 (10th Cir.1978), cert. denied 441 U.S. 952, 99 S.Ct. 2182, 60 L.Ed.2d 1058 (1979). Under the plain language of Ms. Dworkin’s Ninth Cause of Action, whichever court this case is before will have to decide whether Ms. Dworkin is entitled to the First Amendment rights she claims at the expense of what Mr. Flynt claims are his First Amendment rights.

The court in Graf v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co., 697 F.2d 771, 775 (7th Cir.1983) stated, “(a) claim that you have been retaliated against for exercising a federal right [in this case freedom of speech] might raise a federal question substantial enough to confer federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” This matter goes one step further. Not only does Ms. Dworkin claim that the defendants retaliated against her for exercising her own constitutional right to speak out against pornography, but also she contends that it is the First Amendment and the courts’ interpretations thereof which have allowed the defendants to use claimed rights of free speech to chill the exercise of her rights of free speech. Clearly, construction of the First Amendment will be necessary to resolve this conflict. Since the outcome of this claim will be contingent on the construction of the federal constitution, this matter is a federal question under the Mountain Fuel test.

The Court notes that when faced with a somewhat similar case alleging invasion of constitutional rights, the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the matter involved a federal question. As the court stated, “Counts II and III of the complaint allege violations of Tuck’s and his client’s constitutional liberties, thus furnishing the court with federal question jurisdiction.” Tuck v. Pan American Health Organization, 668 F.2d 547 (D.C.Cir.1981) . Ms. Dworkin alleges the same type of claim, namely, that defendants have violated her constitutional liberty of free speech. The Tuck court also noted that while defendant Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) probably was not a state actor, since the civil rights claim against PAHO was not “obviously frivolous”, the claim was not insubstantial for jurisdictional purposes.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, in one of his many arguments for remand, stated that the Ninth Cause could not be a federal question because as a civil rights claim it was deficient in failing to allege state action. The Court first notes that if a plaintiff could effectuate remand by pointing out the flaws in her own complaint, in effect arguing for dismissal of that claim, the long established rule that jurisdiction is determined in light of the original complaint, not subsequent amendments, could become meaningless. See Brown v. Eastern States Corp., 181 F.2d 26 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 864, 71 S.Ct. 88, 95 L.Ed. 631 (1950); 1A J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed. § 0.160(7). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has long held that the fact that a claim might be ripe for a motion to dismiss at a later time does not necessarily affect the question of subject matter jurisdiction. “A claim is insubstantial only if its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 538, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1379, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) quoting from Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288, 30 S.Ct. 326, 327, 54 L.Ed. 482 (1910).

As far as the Court can ascertain, no circuit court, much less the Supreme Court, has ever ruled on the question of whether there should be a private cause of action for interference with the right to free speech brought about by another party’s exercise of what appears to be his equal right to free speech. The Court is not willing to decide, without benefit of briefing by all parties, that Ms. Dworkin cannot state such a claim against defendants. Ms. Dworkin alleges that the only reason defendants are able to engage in such activities is because they hide behind the First Amendment, using it both as a shield and sword against the rights of private, non-media connected citizens. Without commenting on the merits of such a claim, the Court notes that private attempts to “misuse” the law have been previously recognized as government entanglement sufficient enough to constitute state action. See, e.g., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). Whether or not Ms. Dworkin can actually go forth with such a claim will be a matter for later determination, but as the pleadings now stand, the Court cannot conclude that the Ninth Cause is obviously frivolous and unsound.

The Court must conclude, however, that in order to properly assess plaintiffs’ claim, it will be necessary to construe the First Amendment right of free speech and the cases dealing with such rights. This case is distinguished from Monks v. Hetherington, 573 F.2d 1164 (10th Cir.1978), in which the First Amendment was invoked essentially as a defense in a declaratory judgment case. Although defendants will certainly rely for a defense on the First Amendment, plaintiff does also. This case is more akin to the Mountain Fuel case, supra, 586 F.2d 1375, in which plaintiff, in its complaint, discussed federal price control regulations, which the Tenth Circuit held was enough to invoke federal question jurisdiction. Likewise, Ms. Dworkin, on the face of her complaint, asks the Court to determine whether defendants have violated her rights under the United States Constitution. This clearly involves a dispute respecting the construction and effect of the First Amendment. The Court must conclude that the Ninth Cause of Action raises a federal question, based upon which defendants have an absolute right of removal to federal court.

Defendants also contend that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and (c). Although the Court is not totally convinced that plaintiffs Moree and Fouts are properly joined in this action, it is unnecessary to deal with the validity of their claims at this time. The major obstacle to a finding that diversity exists is that defendant Park Place, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation. Defendants argue that Park Place was fraudulently joined in this action, and that diversity really is complete between California, New York, Oregon, and Wyoming residents.

Defendant Park Place is a small convenience store in Jackson, Wyoming. Its only connection with the case is the fact that Hustler magazines can be purchased there. Defendants contend that Park Place cannot possibly be found liable because there is no evidence that Park Place had any knowledge that the issues in question contained the allegedly libelous material. The general rule for secondary publishers, as stated in § 581 of the Second Restatement of Torts, is that “one who only delivers or transmits defamatory matter published by a third person is subject to liability if, but only if, he knows or has reason to know of its defamatory character.”

Professor Prosser is in complete agreement:

It would appear quite clearly that those who perform a secondary role in disseminating defamatory matter authored and published by others in the form of books, magazines, and the like — as in the case of libraries, news vendors, distributors, and carriers — would not be subject to liability to anyone in the absence of proof that they knew or had reason to know of the existence of defamatory matter contained in matter published. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Ed., p. 810.

Furthermore, according to the Restatement, unless there is something unusual which should put him on notice, a distributor is also “under no duty to examine the various publications that he offers for sale to ascertain whether they contain any defamatory items.” § 581, comment (d).

The affidavit and deposition of Michael Lynch make it clear that plaintiffs have no evidence of such knowledge on the part of Park Place. Mr. Lynch, president, and with his wife as sole owners of the corporation, has sworn that he had no knowledge that the material in question was in the magazines, much less that it might be libelous in nature. Without evidence of such knowledge, no cause of action exists against Park Place. “The joinder of a resident defendant against whom no cause of action is stated is patent sham ... and though a cause of action be stated, the joinder is similarly fraudulent if in fact no cause of action exists.” Dodd v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 82, 85 (10th Cir.1964). The Dodd case also holds in deciding whether a defendant is fraudulently joined, which the Court should note is a legal term of art that does not reflect on the integrity of plaintiffs or counsel, the Court can pierce the pleadings and compel plaintiffs to disclose their evidence regarding liability of that party. Id., at 85.

Plaintiffs have failed to provide any evidence that Park Place knew or should have known of the allegedly libelous material in the Hustler issues in question. In his deposition Mr. Lynch testified that neither he nor any of his staff had any knowledge of the material in question, and that he had no personal knowledge of Hustler having ever printed anything untrue or defamatory. Lynch deposition at 62. Plaintiffs’ counsel rely on the fact that both comments (d) and (e) of § 581 of the Second Restatement of Torts talk in terms of distributors assuming a risk for disseminating notoriously sensational or scandalous publications, contending that since Mr. Lynch knew that Hustler had been sued by Jerry Falwell (although after the publication and sales of the issues in question), and that defendant Flynt has engaged in contemptuous activities in court, Park Place should have been on notice to check every issue of Hustler for possible libelous content.

In the ordinary layman’s understanding of the word, Hustler certainly can be considered scandalous. But our courts have held that in the context of the Restatement, scandalous must be read as a term of art meaning defamatory. “In context, those words [“sensational” and “scandalous”] describe authors or publishers who notoriously use defamatory material in their publications.” Osmond v. EWAP Inc., 153 Cal.App.3d 842, 200 Cal.Rptr. 746 (1984). Scandalous has been given that meaning by the courts in order to avoid unwarranted censorship, because if a distributor were to be held accountable for reading all possible scandalous material that he sells to check it for libelous statements, much written material otherwise protected by the First Amendment would simply not be offered for sale to the public. The Supreme Court stated in Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 153-54, 80 S.Ct. 215, 219, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959),

If the contents of bookshops and periodical stands were restricted to material of which their proprietors had made an inspection, they might be depleted indeed. The bookseller’s limitation in the amount of reading material with which he could familiarize himself ... thus would tend to restrict the public’s access to forms of the printed word which the State could not constitutionally suppress directly. The bookseller’s self-censorship, compelled by the state, would be a censorship affecting the whole public, hardly less virulent for being privately administered.

To avoid such private censorship, courts have required a specific showing of scienter, knowledge of the defamatory material, before allowing mere distributors to be held liable. The plaintiffs have produced no evidence of such scienter on the part of Park Place. A realization that Hustler was once sued for libel, or that Larry Flynt has engaged in questionable behavior in the past, is not the equivalent of actual knowledge of the allegedly libelous cartoons. Nor is such knowledge sufficient to put Park Place on notice to check each Hustler magazine for defamatory material. If that was the proper standard, every distributor of publications, such as the National Enquirer, or such respected publications as Time and The New York Times, which have also had their fair share of libel suits, would have to check each issue, at his peril, for possible libelous statements about people or events of which the average publication distributor might have no basis for judgment. Such a standard is not in our society’s best interests; it would foster excessive censorship, and would deprive the public of reading educational and entertainment materials, all in direct contradiction of the right of freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Asking his prospective female employees if they would have reservations about selling Hustler does not show such scienter on the part of Mr. Lynch or Park Place. It merely shows knowledge on the part of Mr. Lynch that Hustler publishes some material that many women find offensive, not that he had any knowledge regarding possible defamatory material. Many publications are offensive to one group or another, but that does not mean that these groups should have the power to stop others from purchasing otherwise protected publications. The near absolute freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment has its costs. All citizens must live with the realization that every other citizen also has protected rights. Again, to allow liability of a publication’s distributor to be based on the knowledge that some people might find certain publications offensive would dangerously foster massive private censorship of published materials.

In discussing a similar case, the court in Lewis v. Time, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 455, 465 (E.D.Cal.1979), aff'd 710 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.1983), concluded that

(t)he high standards required by the First Amendment combined with the total absence of case law in California [and Wyoming] holding a distributor liable where he has merely disseminated an unchanged article suggests the inherent improbability of proving such liability.

The Court agrees with the Lewis court that “the unrestricted distribution of newspapers and magazines ... is at the heart of the First Amendment ... (and that) specific factual allegations concerning actual knowledge or giving rise to a duty to investigate are required in any lawsuit seeking to impose liability on a distributor for libelous material in a periodical over which he has no editorial control.” Id., at 465.

Counsel urges that a separate standard should be imposed for Hustler because of the type of publication it is. While publications like the National Enquirer have been found liable for defamation several times, counsel admits they should be exempt from this special standard. Since plaintiff has not presented the Court with a single case, upheld on appeal, holding Hustler liable for defamation, the Court can only conclude that there is no good reason to promulgate the requested special standard. Because of the lack of evidence of scienter on the part of Park Place, the Court must find that in deciding the question of diversity it must ignore the presence of Park Place as being “fraudulently joined.” Dodd, supra, 329 F.2d at 85. Without considering Park Place, diversity is complete, and the case was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Plaintiffs also argue that there is no diversity because the Moree and Fouts claims do not put $10,000 in controversy. Ms. Moree and Ms. Fouts have sued defendants for interference with their rights based on the same cartoons which allegedly libel Ms. Dworkin. Ms. Dworkin seeks $50 million in actual damages, and $100 million in punitive damages. Since they only ask for damages “in a dollar amount which can and should be determined by the jury”, plaintiffs Moree and Fouts ask the Court to conclude the requisite amount is not in controversy. The Court is unconvinced by this argument. Moree and Fouts are also seeking injunctive relief which easily could involve more than $10,000. In Count XII of their complaint, plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin Hustler magazine

from using the name or likeness of any member of these associations [local and national NOW chapters] or any other woman in any article which is false, known to be false, or, if true, not published with good intent and for justifiable ends.

Assuming for the moment that the Court should consider reassessing the “actual malice” test for libel, and further should consider engaging in such massive prior restraint, it would be impossible not to conclude that the requested relief puts more than $10,000 in controversy. It has long been the rule in the Tenth Circuit that

(i)n determining the matter in controversy, we may look to the object sought to be accomplished by the plaintiffs’ complaint; the test for determining the amount in controversy is the pecuniary result to either party which the judgment would directly produce. Ronzio v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 116 F.2d 604, 606 (10th Cir.1940).

Since Hustler magazine’s main business revolves around using the names and likenesses of women, such an injunction could have a devastating impact on Hustler’s multi-million dollar business, and from Hustler’s point of view, clearly puts more than $10,000 in controversy.

Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the equities of the situation call for remand. This Court sincerely sympathizes with the plight of ordinary women who might wish to sue pornographers in their local court, but that is not a proper consideration upon a motion to remand. Only Ms. Moree resides in Teton County, while Ms. Fouts lives in another Wyoming locality, and Ms. Dworkin resides in New York. In Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass’n, AFL-CIO v. Seay, 693 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1982), reh. denied, 696 F.2d 780 (10th Cir.1983), the court held that the trial court’s remand based on the decision that “the most equitable forum ... would be the state district court where the action was originally filed”, was improper, and granted defendant’s mandamus petition. The Court of Appeals went on to say that equitable considerations are not grounds for remand because they do not “concern jurisdiction or any legal defect in the removal and instead (are) similar to the ground for remand rejected in Thermtron [Products Inc. v. Hermansdorfer ], ... 423 U.S. [336] at 340-41 [96 S.Ct. 584 at 587-88, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976)].” Id. at 1005. If this Court could consider such equities, it would be delighted, nay, overjoyed, to remand this case promptly to the District Court of Teton County; it finds no joy, or pleasure in having to retain jurisdiction of it. But, the Court is certain that if it did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would grant a mandamus petition, just as it did in Judge Seay’s ease, supra.

Thus, this Court must reluctantly conclude that removal was proper, based upon both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, and that plaintiffs' equitable claims must be deemed irrelevant to the question at hand. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for remand be, and the same hereby is, denied. It is further

ORDERED that an immediate appeal from this order denying remand to the State Court may be taken by the plaintiffs, if they desire to do so, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), to the Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit, upon the ground that this order involves controlling questions of law concerning the existence of a federal question and the liability of secondary distributors of published materials on which there may be substantial grounds for a difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from this order may materially advance the ultimate determination of this action.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: HOEVELER, District Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Oscar LUGO and Sara Lugo, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant.
    No. 83-1795-Civ-Hoeveler.
    United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.
    June 18, 1985.
    James H. Gray, Jr., Alldredge and Gray, P.A., Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs.
    John D. Golden, Law Offices of Rumberger, Wechsler & Kirk, Miami, Fla., for defendant.
   MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HOEVELER, District Judge.

The motion for summary judgment before the Court presents the question of whether Florida’s statute of repose for products liability actions violates the Florida constitution as applied to the plaintiffs because it effectively denied their right of access to the courts by reducing the time for filing their action to four months.

On June 30, 1982, Oscar Lugo was injured when he fell out of a van manufactured by the defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), in which he had been riding as a passenger. On June 3, 1983, the plaintiffs, Oscar Lugo and his wife, Sara, brought this products liability action in state court alleging that Oscar Lugo’s injuries resulted from the defective design of the arm rest and door handle on the van. Ford removed the cause to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

On January 14, 1985, the Court allowed Ford to amend its affirmative defenses to include Florida’s statute of repose for products liability actions, FLA.STAT. § 95.-031(2), as an affirmative defense. Ford then moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs’ cause of action was barred by the statute of repose. The Court heard argument and received evidence on the motion for summary judgment at a hearing on March 13, 1985.

Section 95.031(2) states:

Actions for products liability ... under s. 95.11(3) must be begun within the period prescribed in this chapter, with the period running from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, instead of running from any date prescribed elsewhere in s. 95.11(3), but in any event within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser ... regardless of the date the defect in the product ... was or should have been discovered.

FLA.STAT. § 95.031(2) (1983). (Emphasis added.)

The statute of limitations for negligence and products liability actions in the State of Florida is four years. FLA.STAT. § 95.-11(3) (1983). In contrast to the statute of limitations, which establishes a time limit within which an action must be brought measured from the time of accrual of the cause of action, a statute of repose cuts off the right of action after a specified time running from the date of delivery of the product. Bauld v. J.A. Jones Construction Co., 357 So.2d 401, 402 (Fla.1978).

The record before the Court in the instant cause consists of the record in the court file, including the deposition of the plaintiffs’ expert, Professor Robert Adt of the University of Miami, and the proffers made by the plaintiffs’ counsel at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Counsel for Ford accepted these proffers as part of the record the Court would consider in deciding the motion.

Rather than include the facts in the text of the opinion, the Court has set out the chronology of events in the cause in the Appendix to this decision. The Appendix is incorporated herein as the Court’s findings of facts.

The plaintiffs have not contested the fact that their cause of action accrued on the date of the accident, which was “the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered ...” pursuant to § 95.-031(2). Nor have they contested the fact that the van was delivered to the original purchaser on October 30, 1970 and that the repose period ended on October 30, 1982. Therefore, the plaintiffs had four months within which to file their action.

The Supreme Court of Florida has held that, under certain circumstances, a statute of repose violates the right of access to the courts guaranteed by the Florida Constitution, art. I, § 21. In Overland Construction Co. v. Sirmons, 369 So.2d 572 (Fla.1979), the Supreme Court found that a statute of repose was unconstitutional as applied to a plaintiff whose cause of action arose after the expiration of the repose period. As the Court explained, there would be no judicial forum available for the plaintiff in that situation because his cause of action would be barred when it first accrued. Id. at 575. Although Overland involved the then current statute of repose for construction defects, FLA.STAT. § 95.-ll(3)(c) (1975), the rationale of Overland applies equally to the statute of repose for products liability actions, § 95.031(2). Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980); Diamond v. E.R. Squibb and Sons Inc., 397 So.2d 671 (Fla.1981); Ellison v. Northwest Engineering Co., 521 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.Fla.1981).

As a result of those decisions, the plaintiff whose products liability cause of action accrues after the expiration of the period provided in the statute of repose can bring his action within the four year statute of limitations.

In the instant cause, the cause of action arose when there were four months left to run on the statute of repose. The plaintiffs have not had their cause of action barred, but they have had the time within which they could exercise their right of access to the courts dramatically shortened.

The Florida Supreme Court has held that a statute of repose is not unconstitutional where the statute merely curtails the time for filing. Purk v. Federal Press Co., 387 So.2d 354, 357 (Fla.1980); Bauld, 357 So.2d at 402-3. In Purk and Bauld, the court held that the statute of repose at issue was not unconstitutional as applied to a plaintiff whose cause of action was barred on the date of enactment of the statute because the statute contained a savings clause allowing one year from the date of enactment within which to file. Id.

The question before the Court is whether the time for filing could be so severely shortened as to be equivalent to a denial of the right to access to the courts. That question is a question of law to be decided by the court. Cates v. Graham, 427 So.2d 290, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), affirmed, 451 So.2d 475 (Fla.1984).

Ford argues that the Court need only inquire if the statute of repose acts as an absolute bar to the plaintiffs’ cause of action. According to the logic of the defendant’s argument, if a plaintiff’s cause of action accrues at any time prior to the expiration of the repose period, even the day before, then the cause of action is precluded by the statute of repose without violating the Florida constitution. The Lu-gos argue that the statute of repose is constitutional as applied only if it allows a plaintiff a reasonable amount of time within which to exercise his right of access to the courts, with the reasonableness of the time period judged by the facts of the individual case.

In Universal Engineering Corp. v. Perez, 451 So.2d 463 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court reviewed its decisions in Overland and Bauld and discussed the framework for determining whether the statute of repose is constitutional as applied.

Thus, for [a statute of repose] to be unconstitutional as applied, it must operate as an absolute bar to bringing the action. If [a statute of repose] only shortens the time period in which the action may be brought to a reasonable amount of time, then the Florida Constitution is not violated.

451 So.2d at 466-67.

In Cates v. Graham, 451 So.2d 475 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court found the four-year statute of repose for medical malpractice actions constitutional as applied where the plaintiff had a five-month period within which to file. The Court stated:

The real question is whether a five- to six-month period remaining after the discovery of any injury is so short that to enforce the terms of the statute would result in a denial of access to the courts and hence make subsection 95.11(4)(b) unconstitutional as applied.
In Bauld ... we found constitutional a parallel statute, subsection 95.11(3)(c). In doing so we held that a statute of repose is constitutional and does not bar access to the courts when it merely curtails the time within which suit must be filed as opposed to barring the cause of action entirely. Accord Purk____
[The plaintiff] and the dissenting judge from the third district urge that a five- to six-month limitation on bringing an action is tantamount to no right at all. Admittedly, this is a short period; however, we cannot say that [the plaintiff] was denied access to the courts by the time constraints.

451 So.2d at 476-77. (Citations omitted.)

The language used by the Florida Supreme Court in Universal Engineering and Cates supports the use of a “bright line” test as proposed by Ford, but also suggests that there should be an inquiry into whether the plaintiffs had reasonable access to the courts in the time before the repose period expired.

In Cates, the court also stated that it approved the opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal. Id. at 476. In its opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal stated:

In performing that function [determining the constitutionality of the statute as a matter of law], the court may determine, under the facts of the case, whether or not the party was afforded a reasonable time in which to act before being barred under the applicable statute.

427 So.2d at 291. (Citations omitted.)

District courts of appeal have expressed somewhat divergent views as to the test to be applied under Cates and Universal Engineering, albeit in dicta.

In MacRae v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 457 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the court found § 95.031(2) constitutional as applied where the pilot of a plane involved in a crash had 22 months within which to file a claim against the manufacturer of the plane. The pilot had argued that he actually only had two or three days to file, based on when the passengers in the plane filed suit against him. The court rejected the argument, finding that the cause of action arose on the day of the crash, and went on to say:

If McRae’s cause of action had not arisen until two or three days before the statute had run, the statute would be unconstitutional as applied to him because he would not have had reasonable and ample time within which to file his action.

457 So.2d at 1094. Accord, Pisut v. Sichelman, 455 So.2d 620, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (dicta).

In Cobb v. Maldonado, 451 So.2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), the court upheld the constitutionality of the medical malpractice statute of repose (the same statute which was at issue in Cates) when the malpractice was discovered in August 1980 and the statute of repose expired in October 1980. The court’s opinion did not set forth the exact dates involved, but the plaintiff had from two to three months within which to file. In its discussion of the statute of repose, the court stated:

It is true that as the statute is written the jig is up for the diligent claimant who nevertheless failed to discover a concealed malpractice incident until the last day of the four year limitation period----

451 So.2d at 483 (on motion for rehearing).

Upon reviewing these opinions, the Court is of the opinion that, in determining the constitutionality of § 95.031(2) as applied to the Lugos’ cause of action, it must determine whether the Lugos had a reasonable amount of time within which to act before their cause of action was barred by the application of the statute of repose. However, the inquiry into the reasonableness of the time period for filing seems to be limited to whether the plaintiff, judged under an objective standard, had the minimum amount of time necessary to consult an attorney who could prepare the papers and file them at the courthouse. The Florida courts have found statutes of repose constitutional as applied when they resulted in time periods as short as five months, Cates, or three months or less, Cobb. The Court would note that there are no reported decisions where a statute of repose has been held unconstitutional as applied because it shortened the period within which the plaintiff could file to an unreasonable amount of time. Based on an analysis of the Florida decisions, the Court cannot say that the plaintiffs were denied access to the courts by the time constraints.

While the Court concludes that the plaintiffs’ cause of action must be dismissed because of the current state of the Florida law, it does so reluctantly. Plaintiffs’ counsel, upon being retained, proceeded in a manner which, in almost any setting, would be considered most reasonable and diligent. Indeed, he argued during the hearing on defendant’s motion that his adherence to ethics inhibited his proceeding until he could be satisfied that, in what facially may have seemed a questionable case, he had what he considered a valid basis to proceed. Yet, the Florida Supreme Court has limited the application of the statute of repose in a way which permits some unusual results. Clearly, the plaintiffs would have been better off if the accident occurred after October 30, 1982.

The Court gleans from what has been decided that “reasonable” in this context must mean that plaintiff and counsel should have just enough time to comprehend the total situation, prepare the papers and go to the courthouse. Thus, if the accident occurred a day or two before the end of the repose period, the time involved very likely would be “unreasonable.”

If the test, in cases of this type, is indeed whether plaintiff has a “reasonable” time to file an action, and the Florida decisions suggest it is, the Court must then look to the type or nature of the “reasonableness” discussed by the Florida courts. The Court concludes, as suggested above, that these cases rather narrowly limit the question of reasonableness to the question of access. Problems of investigation, representation and the like do not appear to merit consideration.

Clearly, the principal legislative objective of the statute of repose has been nullified by Florida case law. Yet, like a loose and perhaps unnecessary appendage, it remains in place with a “raison d’etre” (if any), of limiting in varying degrees the statute of limitations otherwise applicable to a products event, depending, of course, upon when it occurred. Faced with the problems consequent to the constitutional partitioning of the repose statute, the Florida courts have, the Court concludes, determined that “access” is necessarily a blend of the rationale behind two different statutes of limitation; in effect a vintage products case now has a flexible limitations period determined by the proximity of the event to the terminal date .of the repose period. Whether the period available in any given case is constitutionally acceptable appears to be the test. Again, “reasonableness,” in this context apparently, means sufficient time to prepare and file the action in question. That time was available here. It is not the Court’s role to gainsay the demands of the Florida cases regardless of what may seem to be an unfair result. The Court concludes that plaintiffs' constitutional rights have not been violated by the application of Florida law to this case. Ford’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be and is hereby granted. Judgment by separate order shall issue forthwith.

APPENDIX

10/30/70 Van was delivered to the original purchaser.

6/30/82 Oscar Lugo was injured when he fell from van.

10/30/82 Statute of repose period expired.

6/3/83 Oscar and Sara Lugo filed action in state court against Ford Motor Co.

9/15/82 Plaintiffs consulted with attorney for the first time.

9/16/82 Plaintiffs’ attorney contacted the owner of the van.

9/17/82 " Plaintiffs’ attorney contacted expert, Professor Robert Adt.

10/14/82 Plaintiffs’ expert examined the van for the first time. The door was

10/16/82 wired to the vehicle and the owner of the van would not allow the door to be removed without having a replacement.

10/25/82 Plaintiffs’ attorney located a replacement door. However, additional parts were necessary to attach the door to the van.

11/2/82 Plaintiffs’ attorney received the additional parts necessary to replace the van door.

1/8/83 Plaintiffs’ expert examined the door.

1/18/83 Plaintiffs’ expert informed the plaintiffs' attorney that there might be a problem with the design of the van door.

      . Art. I, section 21 provides:
      The Courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
      FLA. CONST, art. I, § 21.

      . The Court in Overland set forth the following test for whether the statute of repose violated the access to courts provision in the Florida Constitution: 1) the court must decide whether the legislature, without providing any reasonable alternative, has abolished a statutory or common law right of action protected by art. I, section 21, and, if so, 2) whether that action is grounded both on an overpowering public necessity and an absence of any less onerous alternative means of meeting that need. Overland, 369 So.2d at 573.
      After finding that § 95.11(3)(C) (1975) violated the first part of the test, the Court observed that the Florida legislature did not express the necessity for the statute and, upon review by the Court, the statute was found to be deficient. Id. at 574. The Court recognized the problems to builders and others caused by potential liability for an indefinite period of time, but the Court felt that the difficulties of proof which develop over time were experienced by plaintiffs as well as defendants. Id.

      . In Battilla, Diamond and Ellison the courts seemed to limit their inquiry into the constitutionality of the statute of repose to the first prong of the Overland test without determining whether the statute was grounded in an overpowering public necessity and there were no less onerous means of meeting that need. Compare Overland, 369 So.2d at 573 with Battilla, 392 So.2d at 874; Diamond, 397 So.2d at 672; and Ellison, 521 F.Supp. at 201-02.

      . The Florida legislature added the statute of repose for products liability actions during a substantial revision of Chapter 95, Florida Statutes, in 1974. Chapter 74-382, Laws of Florida. Section 95.022 provides that the revision became effective on January 1, 1975, but that any action which arose after the expiration of the repose period (and therefore would be barred on the effective date) which would not have been barred by the prior limitations provisions could be brought before January 1, 1976, after which time it would be barred. FLA.STAT. § 95.022 (1983).

      . In this diversity case, the Court is bound to follow Florida substantive law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1652; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed.2d 1188 (1938). The Court must follow the state law as it has been announced by the highest court of the state. Bailey v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 613 F.2d 1385, 1388 (5th Cir.1980). In the absence of a decision by the highest court of the state, a federal court sitting in diversity should follow the decisions of the state’s intermediate appellate courts absent some persuasive indication that the state’s highest court would decide otherwise. Silverbérg v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 710 F.2d 678, 690 (11th Cir.1983) (following decisions of Florida district courts of appeal).
      A federal court is bound by this rule whether or not the court agrees with the reasoning on which the state court’s decision is based or the outcome which the decision dictates.

        Id. at 690.

      . The Second District Court of Appeals also has suggested that three months might be a reasonable time for a plaintiff to bring an action. Pisut v. Sichelman, 455 So.2d at 622 (dicta).

      . The Lugos have not raised the issue of whether the application of the statute of repose denies them equal protection of the laws because they had only four months to file whereas a person injured by the same product five months later than Oscar Lugo’s accident would have four years to file. Equal protection challenges to the statute of repose have been rejected in Purk, 387 So.2d at 357-58, and Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 458 So.2d 1136, 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The First District court of Appeals has certified the question of whether § 95.031(2) denies equal protection of the laws to persons injured by products delivered to the original purchaser between eight and twelve years prior to the injury. Pullum, 458 So.2d at 1140 (on motion for rehearing).

      . The First District Court of Appeal has explained fully the present range of possibilities under the statute of repose.
      The results of the interplay among the regular four-year limitations statute, the twelve-year statute of repose and the holding in Overland are: (1) that a person who sustains an injury at any time within eight years from the product's initial delivery date will have four years from the date of injury within which to file suit; (2) that a person injured twelve years or more after the delivery date will also have four years from the date of injury to sue because Overland would preclude the operation of the twelve-year statute; provided [that the person was injured after the effective date of the statute; otherwise, he would be required to file suit within the period provided in the savings clause]; and (3) that those persons injured during the time frame of eight to twelve years after delivery date will be governed by a limitations period of something less than four years, such period depending upon the point, during that time frame, when the injury occurs____

        Pullum, 458 So.2d at 1138.
      The Fourth District Court of Appeals has noted the disparate impacts which a statute of repose can have on plaintiffs in virtually identical situations and has urged legislative action. See Cobb, 451 So.2d at 483.

       At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs’ attorney proffered that Oscar Lugo was in the hospital for ten (10) days after the accident and was in bed for two and one-half months after the accident. The attorney also proffered that Oscar Lugo did not remember falling out of the van but was told that he had fallen out. Oscar Lugo was referred to the attorney by a former client. At the hearing, Ford’s counsel agreed to accept the facts proffered by the plaintiffs’ counsel as the record on which the Court would decide the motion for summary judgment.

       These dates are from the December 2, 1983 deposition of Professor Robert Adt.