MHA, LLC v. SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS, INC. et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 3/2/2017. (ld, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MHA, LLC, dlb/a MEADOWLANDS
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1573 (JLL)
DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al.,
LINARES, District Judge
In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff— MHA, LLC, dlb/a Meadowlands
Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter, “MHA”)
asserts the following eight causes of
action against the remaining defendant in the action, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics,
Inc. (hereinafter, “SHDI”):
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (hereinafter, “the
MMWA”), 15 U.S.C.
violation of the Lanharn Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a), for false designation of
violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
1125(a), for false advertising;
unfair competition under New Jersey common law;
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (hereinafter, “the
breach of contract;
breach of warranty; and
breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealing.
SHDI moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, “Rule”)
12(c) for judgment on the pleadings in its favor as to all of the claims asserted against it
in the second amended complaint. (See dkt. 69 through dkt. 69-3; dkt. 85.) MHA has
filed opposition to the motion. ($ç dkt. 82.)
The Court resolves the motion upon a review of the papers and without oral
argument. See L.Civ.R. 78.1(b). For the following reasons, the Court: (1) grants the
motion in part; (2) administratively terminates the motion in part without prejudice; and
(3) directs the parties to show cause why the action insofar as it concerns state law claims
should be remanded to state court.
The Court presumes that the parties are familiar with the factual context and the
procedural history of the action, which have been set forth at length in two earlier
Opinions, and thus the Court will only set forth a brief summary here. ($çç dkt. 25 &
The Court will refer to documents by the docket entry numbers and the page
numbers imposed by the Electronic Case Filing System.
dkt. 26 (an Opinion and an Order dated December 21, 2015); dkt. 80 & dkt. 81 (an
Opinion and an Order dated January 11, 2017).)
MHA alleges that a particular piece of diagnostic equipment (hereinafter, “the
Device”) that it leased from SHDI failed to properly function soon after SHDI installed
the Device at MHA’s hospital. Disputes then arose concerning MHA’s refusal to renew
its contract with SHDI over the Device, and SHDI’s subsequent threat to withhold the
delivery to MHA of certain necessary reagents and other products.
MHA filed the complaint and the first amended complaint in state court. The
action was then removed to federal court: (1) on the basis of diversity of citizenship, see
1332; and (2) due to the assertion of the MMWA claim. See 28 U.S.C.
1331; see also 28 U.S.C.
1367(a) (providing that a federal court may exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that are related to federal claims). (Sçç dkt. 1
Pursuant to Rule 12(c), the movant for judgment on the pleadings must establish:
(1) that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved; and (2) the entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law. See Rosenau v. Unifund Cow., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir.
2008) (citing Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290—91 (3d Cir.
1988)). In resolving a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(c), the Court must view the facts
in the pleadings and the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non
movant. See Rosenau, 539 F.3d at 221. Furthermore, even though a motion for
judgment on the pleadings is appropriate after the pleadings have been closed, such a
motion is reviewed under the same standards that apply to a motion to dismiss made
under Rule 12(b)(6). See Szczurek v. Prof 1 Mgrnt. Inc., 627 Fed.Appx. 57, 60 (3d Cir.
2015) (citing Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010)).
The MMWA Claim
$HDI seeks judgment in its favor as to the MMWA claim on the ground that the
Device is strictly designed for use in a diagnostic laboratory setting, and thus the Device
is not the type of consumer product that is normally used for personal, family, or
household purposes. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 230 1(1) (providing that the MMWA covers a
“consumer product” that is “any tangible personal property which is distributed in
commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes
(including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property
without regard to whether it is so attached or installed)”) (emphasis added).2 MHA
argues in opposition that the MMWA is applicable because MHA is a consumer of the
product at issue, i.e., the Device, and that SHDI is a warrantor of the Device.
SHDI’s argument is correct. The consumer protection afforded by the MMWA
does not apply to the MHA in its position as the purchaser or the lessee of the Device.
SHDI did not cite any cases issued by any federal court sitting within the
Third Circuit in support of this argument in its briefing. (See dkt. 69-1 at 25—26.)
The Device has no use in a personal, family, or household setting, and it is used solely for
the purpose of providing diagnostic results in a professional healthcare setting.
Rapid Models & Prototypes, Inc. v. Innovated Solutions, No. 14-277, 2015 WL 4914477,
at *6_7 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2015) (dismissing the MMWA claim brought by a plaintiff who
allegedly purchased a malfunctioning three-dimensional printer that was supposed to
perform certain tasks that were essential to the operation of the plaintiffs business of
creating mass-produced items for sale); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Freightliner, LLC, No.
13-5543, 2013 WL 6077352, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2013) (dismissing the MMWA
claim brought on behalf of a plaintiff trucking company concerning an allegedly
defective auxiliary air conditioner designed for use in a commercial truck, because it was
not a product normally used for personal, family, or household purposes); Trans Hudson
Express, Inc. v. Nova Bus Co., No. 06-4092, 2007 WL 1101444, at *7 (D.N.J. April 11,
2007) (dismissing the MMWA claim brought by a plaintiff bus company against the
manufacturer of a bus that was built to be used for public transportation, because the bus
was “most obviously not normally used for personal, family, or household purposes”).
Therefore, the Court grants the part of the motion that seeks relief under Rule 12(c) as to
the MMWA claim.3
The Court’s analysis concerning the MMWA claim does not necessarily
apply to the NJCFA claim. See Rapid Models & Prototypes, Inc., 2015 WL 4914477,
at *11 (dismissing the plaintiffs MMWA claim, but permitting the plaintiffs NJCFA
claim to proceed).
The Lanham Act Claims
SHDI seeks judgment in its favor as to MHA’s two Lanharn Act claims, which
concern allegations of false designation of origin and false advertising, because: (1) a
cause of action under the Lanham Act is meant to cover disputes between competitors;
and (2) MHA is a consumer of SHDI’s Device, and is not SHDI’s competitor. MHA
offers no response to this argument in its opposition brief.4
SHDI’s argument is correct. MHA is not protected by the Lanharn Act in this
instance, because even though “in the end consumers also benefit from the [Lanham]
Act’s proper enforcement, the cause of action is for competitors, not consumers.” POM
Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S.Ct. 2228, 2234 (2014); see Lexmark Int’l, Inc.
v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1390 (2014) (holding that “[e]ven a
business misled by a supplier into purchasing an inferior product is, like consumers
generally, not under the [Lanham] Act’s aegis”).
MHA, in its capacity as a business that was allegedly “hoodwinked into
purchasing a disappointing product.
cannot invoke the protection of the Lanham Act.”
Id. The “complained-of conduct” involves MHA and SHDI “as purchaser and seller,
respectively, and not as competitors,” and thus does not give rise to a cause of action for
MHA to bring claims for false designation of origin and for false advertising under the
Lanham Act. Locus Telecornrns.. Inc. v. Talk Global, LLC, No. 14-1205, 2014 WL
The Court cannot apply a response from MHA concerning the common law
unfair competition claim to the Lanham Act claims, because MHA has also failed to
offer a response to SHDI’s arguments concerning the unfair competition claim.
4271635, at *2_3 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2014) (dismissing a Lanharn Act claim brought by a
commercial re-seller of personal identification numbers that were used to add minutes to
prepaid cell phones, against the commercial entity that allegedly sold numbers to the
plaintiff that did not function). Therefore, the Court grants the part of the motion that
seeks relief under Rule 12(c) as to the Lanham Act claims.
Remaining State Law Claims
five of MHA’s claims remain
common law unfair competition; NJCFA
violation; breach of contract; breach of warranty; and breach of the implied covenant of
good fair and fair dealing
all of which are claims under New Jersey state law. Having
disposed of MHA’s federal claims, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and may remand the state claims to state
court for any further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.
1367(c)(3) (providing that a district
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if all
claims over which the district court possessed original jurisdiction have been dismissed);
see also Beckinger v. Twp. of Elizabeth, 434 Fed.Appx. 164, 170 (3d Cir. 2011)
(affirming a judgment wherein a district court, upon finding in favor of the defendants on
the federal claims that formed the basis for the removal of the action from state court,
remanded the action insofar as it still contained viable state claims to state court). The
parties are directed to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over MHA’s state law claims at this juncture.
Subj ect-matter jurisdiction based upon the alleged diversity of citizenship among
the parties was also alleged in the notice of removal.
diversity of citizenship was not properly pleaded.
SHDI is asserted to be a citizen of both California and New York. (See dkt. 1 at 3
(alleging that SHDI is a California corporation with its principal place of business in New
York).) See 28 U.S.C.
1332(c)(l) (providing that a corporation is deemed to be a
citizen of the state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its
principal place of business).
MHA is merely alleged to be a New Jersey citizen based upon its status as an
operator of a New Jersey hospital with an office in New Jersey. (See dkt. 1 at 2.)
However, MHA is a limited liability company, and thus it is an unincorporated entity. As
a result, MHA is deemed to be citizen of each state in which all of its members are
citizens, and not simply the state or states in which it was formed and has its principal
place of business. See VICI Racing, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 763 F.3d 273, 282 (3d
Cir. 2014); see also Arnericold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1012, 1014
(2016) (stating the “metaphysical” rule that “[w]hile humans and corporations can assert
their own citizenship, other entities take the citizenship of their members”). The name of
each member of MHA must be specifically alleged, and the citizenship of each
membership layer of MHA must be traced and analyzed, in order to determine MHA’s
true citizenship. See Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 4 19—20
(3d Cir. 2010); see also Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 108
n.36 (3d Cir. 2015) (stating that if “diversity jurisdiction” is alleged, then “there is no
reason to excuse [an unincorporated association] of its obligation to plead the citizenship
of each of its members”). All of MHA’s members have not been specifically named, and
the citizenship of each member has not been explicitly analyzed.
The Court has been prevented from discerning whether MHA is deemed to be
citizen of among other states, any state of which SHDI is deemed to be a citizen, i.e.,
California or New York. See 28 U.S.C.
1332(a)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546
U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (requiring complete diversity between each plaintiff and each
defendant); Caribbean Telecornrns. Ltd. v. Guy. Tel. & Tel. Co. Ltd., 594 F.Supp.2d 522,
530 (D.N.J. 2009) (stating that a party is not permitted to select among the multiple
‘jurisdictional citizenships” of an entity in order to preserve or defeat the diversity-ofcitizenship requirement).
A jurisdictional challenge is measured “against the state of facts that existed at the
time of filing
whether the challenge be brought shortly after filing, after the trial, or
even for the first time on appeal.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S.
567, 571 (2004).
Therefore, MHA is directed to assist the Court in detenTlining whether the Court
possesses diversity jurisdiction over the action by: (1) specifically listing alt of the
members comprising its membership; and (2) completely analyzing the citizenship of all
of its members. See CBS Corp. v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 604 Fed.Appx. 209, 209 (3d
Cir. 2015) (holding that the district court did not possess diversity jurisdiction over the
action because diversity of citizenship never existed, and thus the district court lacked the
constitutional authority to proceed). MHA must also apprise the Court about its
citizenship, both as it existed when MHA originally brought the action and as it currently
An allegation as to where any member of MHA resides, is licensed, or has a place
of business will neither properly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction nor be responsive to the
Court’s query concerning citizenship. See McNair v. Synapse Grp. Inc., 672 F.3d 213,
219 n.4 (3d Cir. 2012) (stating that an allegation concerning a party’s residency is
‘jurisdictionally inadequate” for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction); see also Muchier
v. Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 798 n.3 (3d Cir. 2015) (reiterating the same).
MHA must also refrain from asserting confidentiality on behalf of its members,
and thus MHA must avoid thwarting the Court’s efforts to ascertain whether there is
diversity jurisdiction. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, 350 F.3d
691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003) (stating such details cannot be kept confidential from the
judiciary); see also Emerald Investors Trust v. Gaunt Parsippany Partners, 492 F.3d 192,
207 n.22 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that a party cannot withhold the details of its citizenship
from the judiciary); Wonders Trust v. Deaton, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 473, 480 (M.D. Fla. 2000)
(admonishing a party for its failure to cooperate with the district court’s jurisdictional
inquiry, because a party “should not be permitted, through recalcitrance, to prevent this
Court from determining its own subjectmatter jurisdiction”).
The Part of SHDI’s Motion Addressing MHA’s State Law Claims
The parties are now ordered to show cause why the action should not be remanded
to state court: (1) pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3), because subject-matter jurisdiction no
longer exists here under Section 1331; and (2) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 1332, because diversity of citizenship among the parties may not
exist. Pending the resolution of the Court’s concerns relating to subject-matter
jurisdiction, the part of SHDI’s motion seeking relief pursuant to Rule 12(c) as to MHA’s
five remaining state law claims is administratively terminated without prejudice.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court: (1) grants the part of SHDI’s motion
seeking relief under Rule 12(c) concerning MHA’s claims brought pursuant to the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Lanharn Act; (2) administratively tenninates
without prejudice the part of SHDI’s motion seeking relief under Rule 12(c) concerning
MHA’s claims brought pursuant to state law; and (3) directs the parties to show cause
why the remaining state law claims in the action should not be remanded to state court for
lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court will enter an appropriate Order, which will include an Order to Show
ted 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?