Chayna  Drapeau, et al. v. Bluestem  Brands, Inc., et al.

D. New Hampshire

Chayna Drapeau, et al. v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., et al.

2025 DNH 052

District Court, D. New Hampshire·Decided April 14, 2025·No. 22-cv-00150-PB·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F N E W H AM P S H I R E

C h a y n a D r a p e a u , e t a l.

v. Ca se No. 22-cv-00150-P B Opin ion No. 2025 DNH 052 B lu e s t e m B r a n d s , I n c ., e t a l.

ME MO R AN D U M AN D O R D E R Ch a yn a Dr a pea u a n d h er eigh t -yea r -old son Ben wer e sever ely bu r n ed wh en t h e lid of a pr essu r e cooker Dr a pea u wa s u sin g exploded. Dr a pea u a n d h er h u sba n d, Vin cen t , h a ve su ed sever a l dom est ic a n d in t er n a t ion a l en t it ies in volved in t h e design , m a n u fa ct u r e, t est in g, a n d m a r ket in g of t h e pr essu r e cooker . Th e Dr a pea u s a sser t a va r iet y of cla im s, on ly t wo of wh ich a r e a t issu e h er e: n egligen ce a n d viola t ion of t h e New H a m psh ir e Con su m er P r ot ect ion Act (CP A). Defen da n t In t er t ek Test in g Ser vices NA, In c. (ITS) m oves t o dism iss t h ose cla im s pu r su a n t t o F eder a l Ru le of Civil P r ocedu r e 12(b)(6). F or t h e r ea son s set for t h below, I gr a n t t h e m ot ion in pa r t a n d den y it in pa r t .

I . B AC K G R O U N D

A. T h e Alle g e d Ma lfu n c t io n On F ebr u a r y 14, 2020, Ch a yn a Dr a pea u pu r ch a sed a Ch ef’s Ma r k P r efer r ed Qu a lit y 10-Qu a r t E lect r ic P r essu r e Cooker (“t h e pr essu r e cooker ”)

fr om Blu est em ’s F in ger h u t Ca t a log. Doc. 73 a t 13. Th e pr odu ct wa s sen t t o h er h om e in Som er swor t h , N ew H a m psh ir e, on F ebr u a r y 17, 2020. Id.

On Au gu st 22, 2021, wh ile pr epa r in g a st ew wit h h er son , Dr a pea u locked t h e pr essu r e cooker ’s lid a n d bega n t h e cookin g pr ocess. Id. a t 14. Aft er h ea r in g t h e r elea se va lve a ct iva t e, sh e t u r n ed t h e oper a t in g va lve t o t h e st ea m r elea se posit ion . Id. Wh en sh e a t t em pt ed t o u n lock t h e lid sever a l m in u t es la t er , t h e fa st en in g m ech a n ism disen ga ged, a n d t h e cover open ed befor e t h e pr essu r e h a d fu lly r elea sed. Id. a t 15. Th e su dden r elea se of pr essu r e ca u sed t h e lid t o det a ch explosively, pr opellin g sca ldin g liqu id on t o Dr a pea u a n d h er son , wh o wa s st a n din g n ea r by. Id. Bot h su ffer ed sever e bu r n s, in clu din g in ju r ies t o t h e ch ild’s fa ce a n d ch est . Id. a t 15-16. B. Th e P r essu r e Cook er Th e pr essu r e cooker wa s sold in t h e Un it ed St a t es by Blu est em Br a n ds, In c., a Dela wa r e cor por a t ion wit h it s pr in cipa l pla ce of bu sin ess in Min n esot a . 1 Id. a t 2. Blu est em con t r a ct ed wit h LF Cen t en n ia l P t e., a H on g Kon g-ba sed en t it y doin g bu sin ess a s “Li a n d F u n g,” t o ser ve a s it s in t er n a t ion a l bu yin g a gen t . Id. a t 8. Blu est em a n d Li a n d F u n g ou t sou r ced

1 Blu est em Br a n ds, In c. filed for ba n kr u pt cy in 2020 a n d n egot ia t ed a sa le of su bst a n t ia lly a ll it s a sset s t o BLST Oper a t in g Com pa n y, LLC. F or cla r it y’s sa ke a n d beca u se t h e pa r t ies r efer t o t h is en t it y a s “Blu est em ” in t h eir br iefs, I do so h er e.

t h e t est in g, in spect ion , a n d cer t ifica t ion of t h e pr essu r e cooker t o a gr ou p of r ela t ed en t it ies, in clu din g ITS, wh ich n ow m oves t o dism iss. C. P r o c e d u r a l H is t o r y P la in t iffs a sser t five cla im s a ga in st ITS: (1) st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y, (2) n egligen ce, (3) br ea ch of expr ess wa r r a n t y, (4) br ea ch of im plied wa r r a n t y, a n d (5) viola t ion of t h e CP A. See id. a t 19-33. Vin cen t Dr a pea u a lso br in gs a der iva t ive cla im for loss of con sor t iu m . Id. a t 33. ITS m oved t o dism iss a ll of t h e cla im s a ga in st it on Sept em ber 4, 2024. See Doc. 77-1. In t h eir object ion t o ITS’s m ot ion , pla in t iffs con cede t h a t dism issa l is a ppr opr ia t e for t h e st r ict lia bilit y a n d wa r r a n t y cla im s. See Doc. 79-1 a t 2. Accor din gly, I dism iss t h ose cla im s wit h ou t fu r t h er a n a lysis a n d t u r n t o ITS’s a r gu m en t t h a t t h e n egligen ce a n d CP A cla im s sh ou ld a lso be dism issed.

I I . S T AN D AR D O F R E VI E W To su r vive a m ot ion t o dism iss for fa ilu r e t o st a t e a cla im , a pla in t iff m u st a llege fa ct s su fficien t t o “st a t e a cla im t o r elief t h a t is pla u sible on it s fa ce.” Ash cr oft v. Iqba l, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (qu ot in g Bell At l. Cor p. v. Twom bly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A cla im is fa cia lly pla u sible if it plea ds “fa ct u a l con t en t t h a t a llows t h e cou r t t o dr a w t h e r ea son a ble in fer en ce t h a t t h e defen da n t is lia ble for t h e m iscon du ct a lleged.” Id.

In t est in g a com pla in t ’s su fficien cy, I em ploy a t wo-st ep a ppr oa ch . See Oca sio-H er n a n dez v. F or t u n o-Bu r set , 640 F .3d 1, 12 (1st Cir . 2011). F ir st , I scr een t h e com pla in t for st a t em en t s t h a t “m er ely offer lega l con clu sion s cou ch ed a s fa ct or t h r ea dba r e r ecit a ls of t h e elem en t s of a ca u se of a ct ion .” Id. (clea n ed u p). A cla im con sist in g of lit t le m or e t h a n “a llega t ion s t h a t m er ely pa r r ot t h e elem en t s of t h e ca u se of a ct ion ” m a y be dism issed. Id. Secon d, I cr edit a s t r u e a ll of t h e pla in t iff’s n on -con clu sor y fa ct u a l a llega t ion s a n d t h e r ea son a ble in fer en ces dr a wn fr om t h ose a llega t ion s, a n d t h en det er m in e if t h e cla im is pla u sible. Id. Th e pla u sibilit y r equ ir em en t “sim ply ca lls for en ou gh fa ct t o r a ise a r ea son a ble expect a t ion t h a t discover y will r evea l eviden ce” of illega l con du ct . Twom bly, 550 U.S. a t 556. Th e “m a ke-or -br ea k st a n da r d” is t h a t t h ose a llega t ion s a n d in fer en ces, “t a ken a s t r u e, m u st st a t e a pla u sible, n ot a m er ely con ceiva ble, ca se for r elief.” Sepu lveda -Villa r in i v. Dep’t of E du c. of P .R., 628 F .3d 25, 29 (1st Cir . 2010).

I I I . AN AL YS I S

A. N e g lig e n c e C la im P la in t iffs do n ot con t en d t h a t ITS wa s dir ect ly in volved in design in g, m a n u fa ct u r in g, dist r ibu t in g, or sellin g t h e pr essu r e cook er . In st ea d, t h eir cla im s a ga in st ITS a r ise fr om it s a lleged r ole in in spect in g, t est in g, a n d cer t ifyin g t h e pr essu r e cooker . Beca u se pla in t iffs a r gu e t h a t ITS is lia ble in

n egligen ce for ser vices it per for m ed for t h e ot h er defen da n t s, ITS’s du t y of ca r e t o t h e pla in t iffs is gover n ed by § 324A of t h e Secon d Rest a t em en t of Tor t s, wh ich pr ovides t h a t :

On e wh o u n der t a kes, gr a t u it ou sly or for con sider a t ion , t o r en der ser vices t o a n ot h er wh ich h e sh ou ld r ecogn ize a s n ecessa r y for t h e pr ot ect ion of a t h ir d per son or h is t h in gs, is su bject t o lia bilit y t o t h e t h ir d per son for ph ysica l h a r m r esu lt in g fr om h is fa ilu r e t o exer cise r ea son a ble ca r e t o pr ot ect h is u n der t a kin g, if

(a ) h is fa ilu r e t o exer cise r ea son a ble ca r e in cr ea ses t h e r isk of su ch h a r m , or

(b) h e h a s u n der t a ken t o per for m a du t y owed by t h e ot h er t o a t h ir d per son , or

(c) t h e h a r m is su ffer ed beca u se of r elia n ce of t h e ot h er or t h e t h ir d per son u pon t h e u n der t a kin g.

Rest a t em en t (Secon d) of Tor t s § 324A (Am . L. In st . 1965); see Bloom v. Ca sella Con st r ., In c., 172 N.H . 625, 630-31 (2019) (a pplyin g § 324A t o n egligen ce cla im ); see a lso Am . L. P r od. Lia b. 3d § 5:38 (“Lia bilit y for n egligen t ly in spect in g, t est in g a n d a ppr ovin g t h e design of a pr odu ct m a y be im posed u n der t h e Rest a t em en t Secon d, Tor t s § 324A.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F N E W H AM P S H I R E

C h a y n a D r a p e a u , e t a l.

v. Ca se No. 22-cv-00150-P B Opin ion No. 2025 DNH 052 B lu e s t e m B r a n d s , I n c ., e t a l.

ME MO R AN D U M AN D O R D E R Ch a yn a Dr a pea u a n d h er eigh t -yea r -old son Ben wer e sever ely bu r n ed wh en t h e lid of a pr essu r e cooker Dr a pea u wa s u sin g exploded. Dr a pea u a n d h er h u sba n d, Vin cen t , h a ve su ed sever a l dom est ic a n d in t er n a t ion a l en t it ies in volved in t h e design , m a n u fa ct u r e, t est in g, a n d m a r ket in g of t h e pr essu r e cooker . Th e Dr a pea u s a sser t a va r iet y of cla im s, on ly t wo of wh ich a r e a t issu e h er e: n egligen ce a n d viola t ion of t h e New H a m psh ir e Con su m er P r ot ect ion Act (CP A). Defen da n t In t er t ek Test in g Ser vices NA, In c. (ITS) m oves t o dism iss t h ose cla im s pu r su a n t t o F eder a l Ru le of Civil P r ocedu r e 12(b)(6). F or t h e r ea son s set for t h below, I gr a n t t h e m ot ion in pa r t a n d den y it in pa r t .

I . B AC K G R O U N D

A. T h e Alle g e d Ma lfu n c t io n On F ebr u a r y 14, 2020, Ch a yn a Dr a pea u pu r ch a sed a Ch ef’s Ma r k P r efer r ed Qu a lit y 10-Qu a r t E lect r ic P r essu r e Cooker (“t h e pr essu r e cooker ”)

fr om Blu est em ’s F in ger h u t Ca t a log. Doc. 73 a t 13. Th e pr odu ct wa s sen t t o h er h om e in Som er swor t h , N ew H a m psh ir e, on F ebr u a r y 17, 2020. Id.

On Au gu st 22, 2021, wh ile pr epa r in g a st ew wit h h er son , Dr a pea u locked t h e pr essu r e cooker ’s lid a n d bega n t h e cookin g pr ocess. Id. a t 14. Aft er h ea r in g t h e r elea se va lve a ct iva t e, sh e t u r n ed t h e oper a t in g va lve t o t h e st ea m r elea se posit ion . Id. Wh en sh e a t t em pt ed t o u n lock t h e lid sever a l m in u t es la t er , t h e fa st en in g m ech a n ism disen ga ged, a n d t h e cover open ed befor e t h e pr essu r e h a d fu lly r elea sed. Id. a t 15. Th e su dden r elea se of pr essu r e ca u sed t h e lid t o det a ch explosively, pr opellin g sca ldin g liqu id on t o Dr a pea u a n d h er son , wh o wa s st a n din g n ea r by. Id. Bot h su ffer ed sever e bu r n s, in clu din g in ju r ies t o t h e ch ild’s fa ce a n d ch est . Id. a t 15-16. B. Th e P r essu r e Cook er Th e pr essu r e cooker wa s sold in t h e Un it ed St a t es by Blu est em Br a n ds, In c., a Dela wa r e cor por a t ion wit h it s pr in cipa l pla ce of bu sin ess in Min n esot a . 1 Id. a t 2. Blu est em con t r a ct ed wit h LF Cen t en n ia l P t e., a H on g Kon g-ba sed en t it y doin g bu sin ess a s “Li a n d F u n g,” t o ser ve a s it s in t er n a t ion a l bu yin g a gen t . Id. a t 8. Blu est em a n d Li a n d F u n g ou t sou r ced

1 Blu est em Br a n ds, In c. filed for ba n kr u pt cy in 2020 a n d n egot ia t ed a sa le of su bst a n t ia lly a ll it s a sset s t o BLST Oper a t in g Com pa n y, LLC. F or cla r it y’s sa ke a n d beca u se t h e pa r t ies r efer t o t h is en t it y a s “Blu est em ” in t h eir br iefs, I do so h er e.

t h e t est in g, in spect ion , a n d cer t ifica t ion of t h e pr essu r e cooker t o a gr ou p of r ela t ed en t it ies, in clu din g ITS, wh ich n ow m oves t o dism iss. C. P r o c e d u r a l H is t o r y P la in t iffs a sser t five cla im s a ga in st ITS: (1) st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y, (2) n egligen ce, (3) br ea ch of expr ess wa r r a n t y, (4) br ea ch of im plied wa r r a n t y, a n d (5) viola t ion of t h e CP A. See id. a t 19-33. Vin cen t Dr a pea u a lso br in gs a der iva t ive cla im for loss of con sor t iu m . Id. a t 33. ITS m oved t o dism iss a ll of t h e cla im s a ga in st it on Sept em ber 4, 2024. See Doc. 77-1. In t h eir object ion t o ITS’s m ot ion , pla in t iffs con cede t h a t dism issa l is a ppr opr ia t e for t h e st r ict lia bilit y a n d wa r r a n t y cla im s. See Doc. 79-1 a t 2. Accor din gly, I dism iss t h ose cla im s wit h ou t fu r t h er a n a lysis a n d t u r n t o ITS’s a r gu m en t t h a t t h e n egligen ce a n d CP A cla im s sh ou ld a lso be dism issed.

I I . S T AN D AR D O F R E VI E W To su r vive a m ot ion t o dism iss for fa ilu r e t o st a t e a cla im , a pla in t iff m u st a llege fa ct s su fficien t t o “st a t e a cla im t o r elief t h a t is pla u sible on it s fa ce.” Ash cr oft v. Iqba l, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (qu ot in g Bell At l. Cor p. v. Twom bly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A cla im is fa cia lly pla u sible if it plea ds “fa ct u a l con t en t t h a t a llows t h e cou r t t o dr a w t h e r ea son a ble in fer en ce t h a t t h e defen da n t is lia ble for t h e m iscon du ct a lleged.” Id.

In t est in g a com pla in t ’s su fficien cy, I em ploy a t wo-st ep a ppr oa ch . See Oca sio-H er n a n dez v. F or t u n o-Bu r set , 640 F .3d 1, 12 (1st Cir . 2011). F ir st , I scr een t h e com pla in t for st a t em en t s t h a t “m er ely offer lega l con clu sion s cou ch ed a s fa ct or t h r ea dba r e r ecit a ls of t h e elem en t s of a ca u se of a ct ion .” Id. (clea n ed u p). A cla im con sist in g of lit t le m or e t h a n “a llega t ion s t h a t m er ely pa r r ot t h e elem en t s of t h e ca u se of a ct ion ” m a y be dism issed. Id. Secon d, I cr edit a s t r u e a ll of t h e pla in t iff’s n on -con clu sor y fa ct u a l a llega t ion s a n d t h e r ea son a ble in fer en ces dr a wn fr om t h ose a llega t ion s, a n d t h en det er m in e if t h e cla im is pla u sible. Id. Th e pla u sibilit y r equ ir em en t “sim ply ca lls for en ou gh fa ct t o r a ise a r ea son a ble expect a t ion t h a t discover y will r evea l eviden ce” of illega l con du ct . Twom bly, 550 U.S. a t 556. Th e “m a ke-or -br ea k st a n da r d” is t h a t t h ose a llega t ion s a n d in fer en ces, “t a ken a s t r u e, m u st st a t e a pla u sible, n ot a m er ely con ceiva ble, ca se for r elief.” Sepu lveda -Villa r in i v. Dep’t of E du c. of P .R., 628 F .3d 25, 29 (1st Cir . 2010).

I I I . AN AL YS I S

A. N e g lig e n c e C la im P la in t iffs do n ot con t en d t h a t ITS wa s dir ect ly in volved in design in g, m a n u fa ct u r in g, dist r ibu t in g, or sellin g t h e pr essu r e cook er . In st ea d, t h eir cla im s a ga in st ITS a r ise fr om it s a lleged r ole in in spect in g, t est in g, a n d cer t ifyin g t h e pr essu r e cooker . Beca u se pla in t iffs a r gu e t h a t ITS is lia ble in

n egligen ce for ser vices it per for m ed for t h e ot h er defen da n t s, ITS’s du t y of ca r e t o t h e pla in t iffs is gover n ed by § 324A of t h e Secon d Rest a t em en t of Tor t s, wh ich pr ovides t h a t :

On e wh o u n der t a kes, gr a t u it ou sly or for con sider a t ion , t o r en der ser vices t o a n ot h er wh ich h e sh ou ld r ecogn ize a s n ecessa r y for t h e pr ot ect ion of a t h ir d per son or h is t h in gs, is su bject t o lia bilit y t o t h e t h ir d per son for ph ysica l h a r m r esu lt in g fr om h is fa ilu r e t o exer cise r ea son a ble ca r e t o pr ot ect h is u n der t a kin g, if

(a ) h is fa ilu r e t o exer cise r ea son a ble ca r e in cr ea ses t h e r isk of su ch h a r m , or

(b) h e h a s u n der t a ken t o per for m a du t y owed by t h e ot h er t o a t h ir d per son , or

(c) t h e h a r m is su ffer ed beca u se of r elia n ce of t h e ot h er or t h e t h ir d per son u pon t h e u n der t a kin g.

Rest a t em en t (Secon d) of Tor t s § 324A (Am . L. In st . 1965); see Bloom v. Ca sella Con st r ., In c., 172 N.H . 625, 630-31 (2019) (a pplyin g § 324A t o n egligen ce cla im ); see a lso Am . L. P r od. Lia b. 3d § 5:38 (“Lia bilit y for n egligen t ly in spect in g, t est in g a n d a ppr ovin g t h e design of a pr odu ct m a y be im posed u n der t h e Rest a t em en t Secon d, Tor t s § 324A.”).

ITS a t t a cks t h e n egligen ce cla im wit h t wo a r gu m en t s. It fir st fa u lt s t h e pla in t iffs for t h eir a lleged fa ilu r e t o plea d t h a t ITS’s con t r a ct wit h t h e ot h er defen da n t s r equ ir ed it t o t est , in spect , cer t ify, or a ccr edit t h e pr essu r e cooker u n der in du st r y st a n da r ds. Th is a r gu m en t is obviou sly a n on st a r t er beca u se pla in t iffs’ t h ir d a m en ded com pla in t a sser t s t h a t ITS con t r a ct ed wit h ot h er

defen da n t s “for t h e t est in g, in spect ion , a n d/or cer t ifica t ion /a ccr edit a t ion ” of t h e pr essu r e cooker . Doc. 73 a t 8. Th is gen er a l a llega t ion is su fficien t t o st a t e a pla u sible cla im t h a t ITS con t r a ct ed wit h ot h er defen da n t s t o per for m ser vices t h a t it sh ou ld h a ve kn own wer e n ecessa r y t o pr ot ect t h ir d-pa r t y u ser s of t h e pr essu r e cooker .

ITS’s secon d a r gu m en t con cer n s t h e qu est ion of wh ich in du st r y sa fet y st a n da r d a pplies t o t h e t ype of pr essu r e cooker a t issu e in t h is ca se. P la in t iffs a sser t t h e pr essu r e cooker is su bject t o UL 136, a pr odu ct sa fet y st a n da r d for cer t a in t ypes of pr essu r e cook er s t h a t wa s developed by UL (for m er ly Un der wr it er s La bor a t or ies) a n d en dor sed by t h e Am er ica n Na t ion a l St a n da r ds In st it u t e. Accor din gly, pla in t iffs ba se t h eir n egligen ce cla im in pa r t on t h eir con t en t ion t h a t ITS wa s n egligen t for fa ilin g t o t est t h e pr essu r e cooker for com plia n ce wit h U L 136. ITS a r gu es t h a t t h e n egligen ce cla im m u st be dism issed beca u se U L 136 does n ot a pply t o it s pr essu r e cook er . In st ea d, it a r gu es t h a t t h e pr essu r e cook er is su bject on ly t o UL 1026, a differ en t st a n da r d t h a t cover s elect r ic h ou seh old cookin g a n d food ser vin g a pplia n ces wit h ou t specifica lly r efer en cin g pr essu r e cooker s. Th is a r gu m en t fa ils, h owever , beca u se wh et h er UL 136 or a n y ot h er in du st r y st a n da r d a pplies t o t h e pr essu r e cooker a t issu e h er e pr esen t s a qu est ion of fa ct t h a t ca n n ot be det er m in ed on a m ot ion t o dism iss.

F or t h ese r ea son s, ITS’s m ot ion t o dism iss t h e n egligen ce cla im is den ied. B. C o n s u m e r P r o t e c t io n Ac t C la im Th e CP A pr oh ibit s a n y “u n fa ir m et h od of com pet it ion or [. . .] decept ive a ct or pr a ct ice in t h e con du ct of a n y t r a de or com m er ce wit h in t h e st a t e.” N.H . Rev. St a t . An n . § 358-A:2. Th e st a t u t e pr ovides a n on exh a u st ive list of u n fa ir or decept ive a ct s a n d pr a ct ices. Id. P la in t iffs ba se t h eir CP A cla im on su bsect ion VII, wh ich pr oh ibit s a per son fr om decept ively “[r ]epr esen t in g t h a t goods or ser vices a r e of a pa r t icu la r st a n da r d, qu a lit y, or gr a de, or t h a t goods a r e of a pa r t icu la r st yle or m odel, if t h ey a r e of a n ot h er [.]” Id. § 358-A:2 VII.

Th e on ly a llegedly fa lse or decept ive r epr esen t a t ion s t h a t pla in t iffs cit e in su ppor t of t h eir CP A cla im con cer n u n specified per for m a n ce a n d sa fet y fea t u r es of t h e pr odu ct t h a t wer e deliver ed wit h t h e pr essu r e cooker wh en it wa s sold. Doc. 73 a t 29, 32-33. Beca u se t h e com pla in t does n ot t ie ITS t o a n y of t h ese a lleged r epr esen t a t ion s, pla in t iffs h a ve fa iled t o st a t e a via ble CP A cla im a ga in st ITS.

I V. C O N C L U S I O N

F or t h e r ea son s expla in ed a bove, I gr a n t t h e m ot ion t o dism iss, Doc. 77, a s t o Cou n t s I, III, IV, a n d V a ga in st ITS. H owever , I den y t h e m ot ion t o dism iss a s t o Cou n t II.

SO ORDE RE D.

/s/ P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict J u dge

Apr il 14, 2025 cc: Cou n sel of Recor d

Chayna Drapeau, et al. v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., et al., 2025 DNH 052 (D.N.H. 2025).

Pincite

2025 DNH 052 (Chayna Drapeau, et al. v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related