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

2025 DNH 052
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedApril 14, 2025
Docket22-cv-00150-PB
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2025 DNH 052 (Chayna Drapeau, et al. v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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.

2 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.

3 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

4 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 :

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

Related

Drapeau v. Bluestem Brands, Inc.
D. New Hampshire, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 DNH 052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chayna-drapeau-et-al-v-bluestem-brands-inc-et-al-nhd-2025.