PIEMONTE et al v. VIKING RANGE, LLC et al
Filing
19
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 11/16/16. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RONALD J. PIEMONTE, SUZZANNE E.
PIEMONTE,
Plaintiffs,
Civ. No. 2:16-cv-03971 (WJM)
OPINION
v.
VIKING RANGE, LLC, et al.
Defendants.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiffs Ronald J. Piemonte and Suzzanne E. Piemonte filed this products liability
action against Viking Range, LLC (“Viking”). Viking now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’
Complaint on res judicata grounds. There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).
For the reasons set forth below, Viking’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Piemonte I
In November 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey
against, inter alia, Viking, asserting claims for violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (“CFA”) and the New Jersey Products Liability Act (“PLA”). Piemonte v.
Viking Range, LLC., D.N.J. No. 14-cv-00124 (“Piemonte I”), ECF No. 1 (Compl.). Ronald
and Suzzanne Piemonte were named Plaintiffs who sued on behalf of themselves in their
individual capacities, as well as on behalf of a proposed class of other New Jersey residents
who purchased Viking refrigerators. Id. ¶ 27. The basis for the Piemonte’ individual
claims was that they had purchased a Viking refrigerator that had been recalled, were not
notified of the recall, and suffered injury when that refrigerator’s door detached on July 7,
2013. Id. at ¶ 12. They sought, inter alia, personal injury damages. Id.
In January 2014, Viking removed the action to this Court. Id. In February 2015,
the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice. See Piemonte I, 2015 WL
519144 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2015). The Court found, inter alia, that Plaintiffs’ CFA claim was
subsumed by the PLA because Plaintiffs had failed to identify any specific representations
1
made by Viking. Id. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ PLA claim because it failed to satisfy
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). Id.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended Complaint, and moved for reconsideration
of the Court’s dismissal of their first Complaint. Piemonte I, ECF Nos. 50, 51. Thereafter,
Viking moved to dismiss the amended Complaint. ECF No. 53. In September 2015, this
Court entered an Opinion and Order denying reconsideration of its February 2015 Opinion,
and dismissing the amended Complaint with prejudice because Plaintiffs had failed to cure
the defects in their original Complaint. Piemonte I, 2015 WL 5666148 (D.N.J. Sept. 25,
2015).
Plaintiffs neither moved for reconsideration of this Order, nor appealed the decision.
B. Piemonte II
In May 2016, Ronald and Suzzanne Piemonte filed a new action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey against Viking. Piemonte v. Viking Range, LLC., D.N.J. No. 2:16cv-03971 (“Piemonte II”), ECF No. 1, Ex. A (Compl.). In July 2016, Viking removed the
action to this Court. Id. This time, the action was only filed on behalf of Ronald and
Suzzanne Piemonte in their individual capacities, and not on behalf of a putative class.
Plaintiffs claim that Suzanne Piemonte was injured when the door on the Piemonte’s
Viking refrigerator detached due to its defective door hinge. Id. ¶¶ 30-37. They raise
claims under the PLA for the personal injury damages they suffered due to the refrigerator
door detachment. Id. at ¶¶ 55-60.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint,
in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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 motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), a court must take all allegations in the complaint as true and view them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975);
Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir.
1998). 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
III.
DISCUSSION
Viking argues that the current action must be dismissed on res judicata grounds.
The Court agrees.
2
Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a subsequent suit where there has been: “(1) a
final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same claim and (3) the same
parties or their privies.” E.E.O.C. v. U.S Steel Corp., 921 F.2d 489, 493 (3d Cir. 1990)
(citations omitted); see also Marmon Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs, 726 F.3d 387, 394 (3d Cir. 2013) (“Res judicata bars a party from initiating a
subsequent suit against the same adversary based on the same cause of action as a prior
suit.” (citations omitted)). “The doctrine of res judicata bars not only claims that were
brought in a previous action, but also claims that could have been brought.” Duhaney v.
Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340, 347 (3d Cir. 2010).
The present action is barred by res judicata. First, Piemonte I was dismissed with
prejudice, which constitutes a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata.
See Petrossian v. Cole, 613 F. App’x 109, 111–12 (3d Cir. 2015) (“A dismissal with
prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits ‘as fully and completely as if the order
had been entered after trial.’” (quoting Gambocz v. Yelencsics, 468 F.2d 837, 840 (3d Cir.
1972)). Second, the action involved the Piemontes’ identical claims against Viking under
the PLA for damages resulting from their faulty refrigerator door. Because Piemonte II is
a “subsequent suit against the same adversary [Viking] based on the same cause of action
as [the cause of action in Piemonte I],” it is barred. Marmon, 726 F.3d at 394.
Plaintiffs argue that res judicata does not apply because the Court’s September 2015
Order dismissed their PLA claim for failure to satisfy the class action requirements of Rule
23(b), and not because their individual claims failed on the merits. But the specific basis
for the prior action’s dismissal does not affect its preclusive effect. See, e.g., Kreidie v.
Sec'y, Pennsylvania Dep't of Revenue, 574 F. App’x 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2014) (res judicata
applies even when district court does not state whether dismissal is with prejudice or not,
so long as it is the same claim against the same parties). Moreover, if Plaintiffs believed
that the Court’s ruling should have been limited to the class claims, rather than also
encompassing their individual PLA claims, they could have moved for reconsideration of
that decision or filed an appeal. Plaintiffs did neither, and are now barred from asserting
those claims. Duhaney, 621 F.3d at 347. Finally, courts have long recognized that named
Plaintiffs in a class action are barred by res judicata from bringing a subsequent action on
their individual claims. See, e.g., Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 758–59 (3d
Cir. 1974) (noting that judgment against Plaintiffs in class action would protect Defendants
from future claims by named Plaintiffs but not necessarily against claims by other class
members); White v. Colgan Elec. Co., 781 F.2d 1214, 1216 (6th Cir. 1986) (“By necessity,
therefore, as [Plaintiff] was a named plaintiff in [the prior class action], his claims were
addressed by the court in that action”); Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1984)
(same).
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Viking’s motion to dismiss. The Complaint
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Viking’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. An appropriate order follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: November 16, 2016
4
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?