BOLDMAN et al v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM ORDER that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint (d.e. 10, 16-4185) will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Defendants' motion to consolidate (d.e. 40, 16-4) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 9/5/2016. (mmh)

RECEIVED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SEP 13 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOSEPH J. BOLDMAN and LAURA A.
BOLDMAN,

AT B:· 0
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLERK

Civ. Nos. 16-4, 16-4185
-

Plaintiffs,

I

MEMORANDUM
ORDER

v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., WALMART STORES, EAST, LP, and WALMART STORES, EAST, INC.,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J ..
On November 17, 2015, Plaintiffs Joseph and Laura Boldman ("Plaintiffs") filed a
product liability action against Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Storesl East, LP, and
.

I

Wal-Mart Stores, East, Inc. ("Defendants") in the Superior Court of New Jersey ("Boldman I")
(Case No. MON-L-15-4273). The action was based on injuries Mr. Boldman susied while
using a gasoline can purchased from Defendants' store. Mr. Boldman had used thl gasoline can
on January 1, 2014 to start a fire, which resulted in an explosion.
Defendarits removed the case to federal court on January 4, 2016. (ECF No. 1, Case No.

.

I

16-4). Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, and on February 10, 2016, the lourt granted
Defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and granting Plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint within thirty days. (ECF Nos. 5, 15, Case No. 16-4). PlaintJffs filed an

.

.

I

.

amended complaint on March 9, 2016. (ECF No. 17, Case No. 16-4). Defendants then filed
another motion to dismiss, which was granted on May 3, 2016. (ECF Nos. 18, 31[ Case No. 164). Although the case was again dismissed without prejudice, the Court did not Jant Plaintiffs

1

M

leave to amend the complaint. (See id.). On May 25, 2016, Plaintiffs attempted to file a second
amended complaint without leave from the Court. (ECF No. 3'3, Case No. 16-4). Dl[efendants
therefore filed another motion to dismiss on June 8, 2016. (ECF No. 34, Case No. 16-4).
Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss, but simultaneously filed a second lroduct
liability action based on the same set of facts in

theSuperi~r Court ofNew Jersey (!'Boldman II")

(Case No. MID-L3488-16). Defendants removed Boldman !Ito this Court on July [ 1, 2016.
(ECF No. 1, Case No. 16-4185). On August 12, 2016, Defendants moved to disin+ Plaintiffs'
complaint in Boldman II. (ECF No. 10, Case No. 16-4185). At the same time, Defendants
moved to consolidate Boldman I with Boldman II. (ECF No. 40, Case No. 16-4).

l

August 17,

2016, after Defendants filed these two motions, the Court denied Defendants' motihn to dismiss
the second amended complaint in Boldman I and granted Plaintiffs' motion for !eat to file the
second amended complaint. (ECF No. 41, Case No. 16-4).
Now, Defendants' motion to consolidate Boldman I and Boldman II and their motion to
dismiss Boldman II are before the Court. (ECF No. 10, Case No. 16-4185; ECF Nf. 40, Case
No. 16-4). Plaintiffs have not filed opposition to Defendants' motions. The Courti will discuss
each motion in turn.
1. Motion to Dismiss
First, Defendants move to dismiss Boldman II (Case No. 16-4185) "for th[ reasons not
only set forth in' Defendants' briefing on the pending Motion to Dismiss, but also for those set
forth in the Orders previously entered by this Court related to the other Boldman Ltion." (Defs.'
Br. 3-4, ECF No. 10, Case No. 16-4185). Although Defendants' briefing requirj the Court to
read between the lines, the Court understands that Defendants are arguing that (1)1 Plaintiffs'
entire complaint should be dismissed because the action was filed outside of the aipplicable

2

~-

1

l

statute oflimitations; and (2) Plaintiffs' common-law claims should be dismissed as subsumed.
by their product liability claims under the New Jersey Product Liability Act (PLA).
The Court addressed Defendants' first argument in its August 17, 2016 opinion and order
in Boldman I. (ECF No. 41, Case No. 16-4). The Court found that Plaintiffs subsjtially
complied with the statute of limitations, principally because Plaintiffs gave DefendLts
reasonable notice of their claims in the original complaint, which was filed within Je statute of

I

limitations. (Id. at 5-6). For the same reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' com,laint in

Boldman II substantially complied with the statute of limitations. Consequently, Defendants'
motion to dismiss will not be granted on the grounds that the filing of the complaiJ fell outside
the statute of limitations.
As for Defendants_' second argument, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' common-law claims
in Boldman II are subsumed by their claims under the PLA. As the Court found in its prior
opinions in Boldman I, Plaintiffs' common-law negligence claims involve "harm caused by a

.

I

product" and do not involve harm caused by the breach of an express warranty, and thus fall

.

.

. ..

I

under the scope of the PLA. (Op. 5, ECF No. 31, Case No .. 16-4; Op. 5-6, ECF No. 15, Case No.
16-4) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann.§ 2A:58C-l(b)(3); In re Lead Paint Litigation, 924 A.bd 484, 503
(N.J. 2007); Green v. Gen. Motors Corp, 709 A.2d 205, 209 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)).
Consequently, the claims are subsumed by the PLA. (Id.). Plaintiffs bring the same commonlaw negligence claims in Boldman II as in their original action. (Compare Complj 4, 6, 8, ECF

I

No. 1, Case No. 16-4, with Compl. 4, 6, 8, ECF No. 1, Case No. 16-4185). Therefore, for the
same reasons discussed in the prior opinions, Plaintiffs' common-law negligence hlaims in

Boldman II will be dismissed with prejudice.

3

2. Motion to Consolidate
Second, Defendants move to consolidate Boldman I and Boldman II (Case los. 16-4 and
16-4185). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), "[i]f actions before the coUrt involve a
I

common question oflaw or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at
issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to

avoi~

unnecessary cost or delay." Here, both actions involve product liability claims basL on the
I

injuries Mr. Boldman sustained in the January 1, 2014 gasoline can explosion. Both actions are
based on the same set of facts. ·Moreover, both actions involve the same questions lnaw, as
Plaintiffs make the same claims against Defendants in both actions under the PLA. The sole
difference between the actions is that in Boldman II (Case No. 16-4185), Plaintiffs include
I

additional common-law claims that this Court previously dismissed in Boldman I (C::ase No. 16.

I

4). (See Op. 5-7, ECF No. 31; Op. 4-6, ECF No. 15). Given that both actions involve the same
questions of law and fact, consolidating the actions will avoid unnecessary cost and delay.
Consequently, Boldman I and Boldman II (Case Nos. 16-4 and 16-4185) will be consolidated for
all purposes. Therefore,

·~

IT IS, on this ~ day of September, 2016,
.

ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint in Boldman II (ECF
No. 10, 16-4185) will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: the motiJ will be
GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' common-law negligence claims, which will be

dismiss~ with

prejudice, and DENIED as to all other claims; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants' motion to consolidate the above-captioned matters (ECF
No. 40, Case No. 16-4) will be GRANTED, and the above-captioned matters shall

t

consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) for all purposes, suJject to de-

4

consolidation if warranted, and that Boldman I (Case No. No. 16-4) shall be desi

ted the

"Lead Case;" and it is further
ORDERED that all future filings in the consolidated matters shall be filed under the
docket of the Lead Case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall docket this Order in each of the two
individual actions; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively terminate Bolllman II (Case
No. 16-4185); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall identify on the docket of each individual
action the Lead Case and the member case.

ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.

5