HOFFMAN v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC.

Filing 42

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/5/15. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, individually :
and on behalf of those similarly situated, :
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
NORDIC NATURALS, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:

Civil Action No. 12-cv-05870 (SDW) (SCM)

OPINION
January 5, 2015

WIGENTON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Nordic Naturals, Inc.’s (“Defendant”
or “Nordic Naturals”) Motion for Sanctions against pro se Plaintiff, Harold M. Hoffman, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. (ECF No. 37). The Court has considered the submissions made in support
of and in opposition to the instant motion. No oral argument was heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. For the
reasons expressed herein, this Court declines to impose sanctions at this time.
I.

BACKGROUND 1
On August 15, 2012, Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a pro se class action Complaint against

Defendant in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Law Division. (ECF No. 1-1).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he purchased Defendant’s product, Nordic Naturals
Ultimate Omega (“Ultimate Omega”), an Omega-3/Omegal-9 fatty acid fish oil supplement, “in
or about May of 2012.” (Compl. ¶ 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant presented false
representations about the quality, testing and labelling standards it employed with respect to

1

The facts set forth in this Opinion are taken from the parties’ respective moving papers and filings.

1

Ultimate Omega. (Compl. 1-2, ¶ 10). Specifically, Plaintiff claims that “based upon sophisticated,
independent laboratory analysis, Defendant’s product contained 311% of the claimed
concentration of Omega-9 Oleic Acid, a mono-unsaturated fatty acid associated with increased
risk of certain cancers as well as respiratory distress syndrome.” (Compl. at Overview). Based on
these allegations, Plaintiff asserted the following claims: (1) Violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 (Counts I-V); (2) Common Law Fraud (Count
VI); (3) Unjust Enrichment (Count VII); (4) Breach of Express Warranty (Count VIII); and (5)
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count IX).
On September 19, 2012, Nordic Naturals removed the matter to federal court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). (Notice of Removal, ECF No.
1). On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. (ECF No.
6). Plaintiff argued that he would be unable to represent both himself and a putative class because
a named Plaintiff may not also serve as class counsel in federal court. Thus, Plaintiff claimed that
his dual role as class representative negates CAFA jurisdiction because it nullifies class
certification in federal court thereby making it impossible for Plaintiff to recover the $5,000,000
minimum jurisdictional amount required under the CAFA. On April 3, 2013, Magistrate Judge
Joseph A. Dickson (“Judge Dickson”) issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) expressly
rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that his dual role unilaterally divested this Court of subject matter
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 16). On April 15, 2013, this Court adopted Judge Dickson’s R&R in its
entirety as the Opinion of the Court. (ECF No. 19).
Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings before this Court,
arguing that Plaintiff’s Complaint is preempted by federal law because food labeling requirements
are governed by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., as amended by the

2

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 341, et seq., and that Plaintiff’s claims were
insufficiently pled altogether. (ECF No. 24). On April 14, 2014, this Court granted Nordic
Naturals’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice. (See ECF No. 35). Nevertheless, this Court, sua sponte, granted Plaintiff the option to
“submit an amended complaint within 30 days . . .” (ECF No. 36).
On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed an identical class-action Complaint (“Hoffman II
Complaint”) against Nordic Naturals in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen
County. (See Def. Br., McDonald Decl., ¶ 14.) The claims asserted in the Hoffman II Complaint
are premised on the same purchase by Mr. Hoffman, of the same Nordic Naturals’ product, and
raises the same causes of action that this Court deemed insufficiently pled and dismissed by its
April 14, 2014 Opinion and Order. (Compare Civil Action No. 12-5870, ECF No. 1 and Civil
Action No. 14-3291, ECF No. 1). On May 2, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion for
sanctions and to recover costs, counsel fees, and damages incurred in answering Plaintiff’s claims
and in filing the instant motion pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Civil
Action No. 12-5870, ECF No. 37). Hoffman II was removed to federal court on May 22, 2014.
(Civil Action No. 14-3291, ECF No. 1).
II.

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 “imposes on any party who signs a pleading, motion, or other paper . . . an
affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing, and that
the applicable standard is one of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v.
Chromatic Commc’ns Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 551 (1991). “[R]easonableness [under the
circumstances is] defined as an objective knowledge or belief at the time of the filing of a
challenged paper that the claim was well-grounded in law and fact.” Ford Motor Co. v. Summit

3

Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 289 (3d Cir. 1991) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
“Generally, sanctions are prescribed only in the exceptional circumstance where a claim or motion
is patently unmeritorious or frivolous.” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). “Courts . . .
have denied sanctions where the law and facts, even if not adopted by the court, are ambiguous
and could be reasonably interpreted in more than one way.” In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action
Litig., 96 F. Supp. 2d 403, 405 (D.N.J. 2000) (citing Ford Motor, supra, 930 F.2d at 289–90).
Defendant asserts that this Court should impose sanctions because Plaintiff continues to
pursue his unmeritorious lawsuit and has resorted to “vexatious litigation tactics” with the intent
to “punish Defendant for not acceding to [his] absurd settlement demands.” Def. Br. P. 1. Plaintiff
counters that he was authorized to file a “fresh complaint” in state court by this Court’s April 17,
2014 order. Pl. Br. P. 6.
Plaintiff’s interpretation of this Court’s Order is inaccurate. In pertinent part, this Court’s Order
stated, verbatim, “ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint within thirty (30)
days from the issuance of this order.” (ECF No. 36). Clearly, Plaintiff was invited to amend his
deficient pleadings before this Court, and certainly not to file a new one in state court. Furthermore,
this Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to remand this matter to state court provided a clear
indication that Plaintiff’s claims are appropriately in federal court. (See Civil Action No. 12-5870,
ECF No. 14 & 19).
Notwithstanding, Defendant’s motion for sanctions and fees is denied. Plaintiff will be granted
benefit of the doubt that he misapprehended this Court’s Order when he filed a duplicative state
court complaint. Plaintiff, however, is strongly cautioned not to mistake this Court’s leniency for
tacit endorsement of any underhanded litigation tactics. Plaintiff is playing a thinly veiled game of
forum shopping by presenting claims that have been invalidated in federal court as a “fresh

4

complaint” in state court. Such tactics reek of gamesmanship and may warrant sanctions in the
future.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion for sanctions and fees is DENIED. An

order consistent with this Opinion will follow.
s/ Susan D. Wigenton
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion

5