PALMER-CARRI v. POLAND SPRINGS
Filing
5
OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 7/10/14. (DD, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JANET PALMER-CARRI,
Civ. No. 2:13-04376 (KM)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.
POLAND SPRINGS,
Defendant.
KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Nestle
Waters North America (improperly pleaded as Poland Springs, hereinafter
“Nestle”) to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff, Janet Palmer-Carri, for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After reviewing the
Complaint, I cannot discern a valid claim for relief against the Defendant.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Palmer-Carri asserts that she was injured after drinking Poland Springs
Water. In her two-page Complaint, Palmer-Carri alleges that, after drinking the
water, she experienced “memory loss, slurred speech, constant diar[rjhea,
stomach cramps, skin break outs (rash), stuttering.” Compl. at 1. She alleges
that the “quality” of the water caused these symptoms, and that she stopped
experiencing the symptoms when she stopped drinking the water. Id. at 1-2.
She also alleges that she “addressed this problem” with Poland Springs
representatives in the past, but was assured that the product was of the
highest quality. Id. at 2. Palmer-Carri seeks $10,000,000,000 in damages, and
demands that the product be taken off the market. Id.
Palmer-Carri filed her Complaint on July 18, 2013. Compl. (Docket No.
1). A summons was issued to Poland Springs (Nestle) on July 19, 2013, and
returned executed on November 26, 2013. (Docket Nos. 2, 3). On December 4,
2013, Nestle moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
(Docket No. 4). Palmer-Carri has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
II.
DISCUSSION
Nestle moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To state a valid claim for relief, the Complaint must
contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed R. Civ.
p. 8(a).
The Defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of showing that no
claim has been stated. Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir.
2005). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must take the allegations of
the complaint as true and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff.
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). Although a
complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, “a plaintiff’s obligation
to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.s. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, the
factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff’s right to relief above a
speculative level, such that it is “plausible on its face.” See id. at 570; see also
Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
In a case brought pro se such as this one, the Court must construe the
Complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 9394 (2007); Haines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Liberal construction
does not, however, require the Court to credit a pro se plaintiff’s “bald
assertions” or “legal conclusions.” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d
902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Even a pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure
to state a claim if the allegations set forth by the plaintiff cannot be construed
as supplying facts to support a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. See
Millhouse v. Carison, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981).
I find that the Complaint fails to state a claim against Nestle. Even under
the most liberal construction of the complaint, Palmer-Carri has failed to allege
facts sufficient to support a cognizable claim. See generally Hczines, 404 U.S. at
520-2 1. Although Palmer-Carri alleges she was injured after drinking Poland
Springs water, she does not tie her personal injury claim to any particular
statute or cause of action. See Compl. at 1-2. For the purposes of this Opinion,
I will assume that Palmer-Carri intends to assert a common law tort claim.
Assuming that this is a state-law claim, the Complaint asserts no basis,
such as diversity of citizenship, for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See
generally 28 U.S.C. § 1332. At any rate, the Complaint is so bereft of any
specific allegations that it cannot be sustained. Palmer-Carri does not identify
what Poland Springs product she consumed, or any specific times or dates of
consumption. She makes no allegation of how or why the water was unfit,
unsafe, or unsuitable for its intended purpose.
In sum, Palmer-Carri has failed to provide “more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Complaint thus fails to
state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face,” and it will be dismissed for
failure to comply with the pleading standards of Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Nestle’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED
and Palmer-Carri’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Dated: July 10, 2014
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?