Estate of T. Sullivan v. Pepsi-Cola

2004 DNH 014

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: January 15, 2004
• Docket: CV-03-361-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

Estate of T . Sullivan v . Pepsi-Cola CV-03-361-JD 01/15/04 P UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Estate of Thomas Noah Sullivan et al. v. Civil N o . 03-361-JD Opinion N o . 2004 DNH 014 Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling C o . , Inc. et al.

O R D E R

Thomas Noah Sullivan died from injuries sustained after

ingesting a pushpin while using it to puncture a can of Pepsi

in an attempt to drink the contents in a manner allegedly

demonstrated in advertisements for the beverage. His parents

subsequently brought an action in Merrimack County Superior

Court against Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling C o . , Pepsi

Bottling Group, Inc., and PepsiCo, Inc. (the “original

defendants”), sounding in negligence, strict products

liability, and violation of the New Hampshire consumer

protection statute.

The court dismissed that suit, however, as time-barred

because none of the defendants had been served with the writ,

nor was it filed, before the three-year anniversary of

Thomas’s death. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4, I . The

same plaintiffs later brought this action against the original defendants as well as PepsiAmericas, PepsiCola Advertising &

Marketing, Inc., and Demoulas Supermarkets, Inc. (the “new

defendants”) seeking recovery for Thomas’s death through

claims of express and implied warranty, which have a longer

statute of limitations period. 1 See id. § 382-A:2-725. The

original defendants have moved to dismiss this suit on res judicata grounds, arguing that the warranty claims are barred

because the plaintiffs failed to assert them in the first

action (document n o . 1 5 ) . The plaintiffs object (document n o .

17).

Background

The plaintiffs allege that when Thomas ingested the

pushpin on July 2 4 , 1999, he was attempting to emulate a

popular Pepsi commercial which depicted young people consuming

the cola by puncturing its can, holding the can to the mouth,

and allowing the contents of the can to spray forcefully into

the mouth, a technique known as “shotgunning.” Tragically, in

Thomas’s case, the pin he used to puncture the can was

instantly propelled by its pressurized contents into his

throat, lodging in his vocal cords and triggering a seizure.

1 The plaintiffs later moved for voluntary dismissal of their claims against PepsiAmerica, which was granted.

2 Despite the efforts of family members and friends to give

emergency medical care, Thomas became comatose after being

transported to the hospital by paramedics. Following cranial

surgery to alleviate the swelling on his brain, Thomas’s

condition continued to deteriorate until he stopped showing

signs of neurological function. On July 2 6 , 1999, he was removed from life support and died.

Thomas’s mother and his father, who was also acting as

the putative administrator of his son’s estate, attempted

through counsel to bring a wrongful death and loss of

consortium action against the original defendants in July,

2002. The writ, which asserted claims of negligence, strict

products liability, and violations of New Hampshire Revised

Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) 358-A, was dated July 2 5 , 2002. It

was not served on any of the original defendants until July 2 9 , 2002, however, three days after the statute of limitations

on the claims had expired. The original defendants moved to

dismiss the action on that basis. On October 2 8 , 2002, the

Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss over the

plaintiffs’ objection.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion asking for

reconsideration of the order on the ground that their writ

“sufficiently set out causes of action” for breach of express

3 and implied warranties, which have a four-year statute of

limitations. Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought leave to

amend their writ to include such claims. The Superior Court

denied the motion in its entirety in a November 1 4 , 2002,

order.

The plaintiffs, still acting through counsel, then filed a notice of appeal. Their appeal, however, was limited to the

Superior Court’s October 2 8 , 2002, dismissal of the action,

excluding the subsequent ruling on the motion for

reconsideration or to amend. The New Hampshire Supreme Court

summarily affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ writ.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs commenced the instant action by

filing a writ in Merrimack County Superior Court which asserts

three theories of recovery against the original and the new

defendants: breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The action was

then duly removed to this court on the basis of diversity of

citizenship.

Discussion

New Hampshire law determines the preclusive effect this

court must give to judgments issued by the courts of that

4 state. Migra v . Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S.

7 5 , 81 (1984); Patterson v . Patterson, 306 F.3d 1156, 1158

(1st Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) . In New Hampshire, res judicata “‘bars the

relitigation of any issue that w a s , or might have been, raised

in respect to the subject matter of the prior litigation.’”

Grossman v . Murray, 141 N.H. 2 6 5 , 269 (1996) (quoting Dennis v . R . I . Hosp. Trust Nat’l Bank, 744 F.2d 8 9 3 , 899 (1st Cir.

1984)).

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has recognized that the

doctrine of res judicata seeks to preserve judicial resources

and promote certainty and finality by barring repetitive

litigation. See E . Marine Constr. Corp. v . First S . Leasing,

Ltd., 129 N.H. 2 7 0 , 273 (1987). A prior lawsuit will have res

judicata effect over a subsequent one when ( 1 ) the parties or

their privies in both actions are the same, ( 2 ) the cases present the same cause of action, and ( 3 ) the first action

concluded with the issuance of a final judgment on the merits.

Brzica v . T r s . of Dartmouth Coll., 147 N.H. 4 4 3 , 454 (2002).

The plaintiffs maintain that res judicata cannot apply

because the second and third elements of this test are absent.

Specifically, they argue that their present warranty claims do

not involve the same cause of action as the negligence, strict

liability, and consumer protection theories asserted in the

5 first case. 2 They also contend that the Superior Court’s

dismissal of the first suit on statute of limitations grounds

did not adjudicate that action on the merits. The court will

address these arguments in turn.

I. Whether the Prior and Current Lawsuits Involve the Same Cause of Action

“In determining whether two actions are the same cause of

action for the purpose of applying res judicata, [the court]

consider[s] whether the alleged causes of action arise out of

the same transaction or occurrence.” In re Univ. S y s . of N.H.

Bd. of T r s . , 147 N.H. 6 2 6 , 629 (2002); see also W . Gate Vill.

Ass’n v . Dubois, 145 N.H. 2 9 3 , 296 (2000); ERG, Inc. v .

Barnes, 137 N.H. 1 8 6 , 191 (1993). To determine whether the

same transaction or occurrence underlies multiple actions, the

New Hampshire Supreme Court generally evaluates the

allegations underlying each claim. See Brzica, 147 N.H. at

455-56; Warren v . Town of E . Kingston, 145 N.H. 2 4 9 , 252-53

(2000); E . Marine, 129 N.H. at 275-76.

2 In a related vein, the plaintiffs argue that the original defendants should be estopped from arguing that the claims asserted against them in the prior lawsuit encompass the same cause of action as those asserted in this case because they opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on the ground that the writ did not include any warranty claims. The court discerns no inconsistency between these two contentions.

6 Both lawsuits allege that the Pepsi advertisements in

question depicted the consumption of the product through

“shotgunning” and that Thomas died from attempting to emulate

this depiction. In their first writ, the plaintiffs asserted

that promoting Pepsi in that manner, either in and of itself

or without warning consumers about the injuries which might result, amounted to negligence, made the Pepsi can

unreasonably dangerous, and violated RSA 358-A. In their

second writ, the plaintiffs asserted that the advertisement

either constituted an express warranty that Pepsi could be

consumed in that manner or showed the defendants’ knowledge

that the cans would be used that way, giving rise to an

implied warranty.

The plaintiffs therefore advance virtually the same

allegations in support of their warranty claims here as they did in support of the claims in their first action against the

original defendants. The lawsuits seek recovery on the same

basis, i.e., Thomas died because Pepsi’s advertisements

promoted an unsafe use of the product. Indeed, the only

difference between the two actions lies in the legal theory on

which the plaintiffs elected to proceed. As the New Hampshire

Supreme Court held in E . Marine, however, for purposes of res

judicata analysis, “the term ‘cause of action’ means the right

to recover, regardless of the theory of recovery.” 129 N.H.

7 at 2 7 4 ; see also Radkay v . Confalone, 133 N.H. 2 9 4 , 298 (1990)

(“Generally, once a party has exercised the right to recover

based upon a particular factual transaction, that party is

barred from seeking further recovery, even though . . . the

theory of relief may be different.”) Thus, the plaintiffs

cannot rely on the distinction between their earlier attempt

to recover in negligence and strict liability, and their

present effort to recover in breach of warranty, to avoid the

res judicata bar.

The plaintiffs invoke the First Circuit’s recent

observation that “the term ‘factual transaction’ is not always

easy to define with precision” from New Hampshire’s res

judicata case law. Patterson, 306 F.3d at 1159. They do not

cite to any case, however, in which the New Hampshire Supreme

Court declined to apply res judicata when the prior and

subsequent actions relied on facts as similar as those alleged in the two lawsuits brought against the original defendants.

The present warranty action and the plaintiffs’ previous

claims do not arise out of different undertakings on the part

of the defendants. C f . Goffin v . Tofte, 146 N.H. 4 1 5 , 417

(2001) (counterclaim against contractor for incomplete

construction no bar to later suit for personal injuries

arising from his negligent management of s i t e ) . Nor do the

claims in the instant case depend on facts which did not arise

8 until after the disposition of the first lawsuit. C f . In re

Alfred P., 126 N.H. 6 2 8 , 630 (1985) (prior action for

involuntary hospitalization no bar to action seeking same

relief on facts which occurred after denial of first

petition). Finally, the plaintiffs pursue the same purpose

here as they did in their first action, monetary damages occasioned by Thomas’s death. C f . Patterson, 306 F.3d at

1361-62 (grandparents’ earlier probate action for guardianship

no bar to minor’s subsequent suit for damages against father).

Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiffs’

prior action against the original defendants arose out of the

same factual transaction as the instant case and that the

lawsuits therefore involve the same cause of action for res

judicata purposes. See Robinson v . Volkswagenwerk A G , 56 F.3d

1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that prior products liability suit barred later action for negligence and breach

of warranty).

II. Whether the Superior Court’s Dismissal of the Prior Suit Was an Adjudication on the Merits

New Hampshire “consider[s] a dismissal based on a statute

of limitations as a judgment on the merits for purposes of

applying res judicata.” Opinion of the Justices, 131 N.H.

5 7 3 , 580 (1989). The plaintiffs attempt to distinguish that

9 decision on the ground that the case considered only paternity

actions, “recognizing . . . those actions are different from a

tort or contract claim.”

In Opinion of the Justices, the New Hampshire Supreme

Court held that proposed legislation authorizing paternity

claims previously dismissed on statute of limitations grounds violated the state constitutional provision on retrospective

laws. Id. at 5 8 2 . The court based its holding on its

determination that the law would have deprived alleged fathers

of their vested right to assert res judicata against claims

which had already been decided, i.e., dismissed on statute of

limitations grounds. See id. at 580-81. Although the court

observed that paternity actions differ from tort or contract

claims, the sole dimension of this difference noted by the

court was that tort or contract claims accrue at a fixed point in time, while paternity claims remain ripe until the child

reaches the age of majority. See id. at 5 8 1 . Despite this

difference, however, the court held that the res judicata

effect of the dismissal of a paternity action as time-barred

extended to all subsequent paternity claims, even those

seeking support solely for the period following the

disposition of the prior action. See id. at 581-82.

Opinion of the Justices, then, simply recognized (and

rejected) an argument for refusing to give res judicata effect

10 to a dismissal on limitations grounds which was applicable to paternity actions but inapplicable to tort or contract actions, rather than the other way round, as the plaintiffs would have i t . Moreover, in stating that the dismissal of a suit as time-barred constituted a judgment on the merits, the court in Opinion of the Justices cited approvingly to three different authorities, each of which accords res judicata effect to dispositions based on statutes of limitations. See Weeks v . Harriman, 65 N.H. 91 (1889) (“that the judgment was rendered upon the plea of the statute of limitations does not make it any the less conclusive in character”); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 1 9 , cmt. f, reporter’s note (1980) (same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (any dismissal “operates as an adjudication upon the merits,” subject to certain exceptions not relevant h e r e ) . Accordingly, the dismissal of an action as time-barred constitutes an adjudication on the merits under the New Hampshire doctrine of res judicata. 3

3 Relying on Moore’s Federal Practice, the plaintiffs suggest that New Hampshire’s determination in Keeton v . Hustler Magazine, Inc., 131 N.H. 6 (1988), that statutes of limitation are procedural rather than substantive for purposes of choice-of-law analysis means that a decision rendered on statutes of limitations grounds cannot be an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata analysis. As Moore’s makes clear, however, a “federal court is required to give [ a ] limitations-based dismissal the same claim preclusive effect as would the rendering state.” 18 James Wm. Moore et a l . ,

11 The plaintiffs also argue that the dismissal of their prior lawsuit cannot operate as a bar to the claims they assert here because the Superior Court determined that their writ in the first action did not set forth any claims for breach of warranty. This argument is without merit. In E . Marine, the New Hampshire Supreme Court adopted the rule that “a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action is barred ‘even though the plaintiff is prepared in the second action . . . to present evidence or grounds or theories of the case not presented in the first

action . . . .’” 129 N.H. at 275 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 25 (1980)). Because this suit involves the same cause of action as the plaintiffs’ prior case against the original defendants, their failure to assert the breach of warranty claims then prevents them from bringing them now. See Brzica, 147 N.H. at 452-456. 4 The court

Moore’s Federal Practice § 131.30[3][g][ii] (3d ed. 2 0 0 3 ) . Because New Hampshire plainly gives preclusive effect to a dismissal on limitations grounds, see Opinion of the Justices, its treatment of statutes of limitation as procedural in another context is immaterial. 4 Like the plaintiffs here, the plaintiffs in Brzica attempted to amend their complaint in the first action to add new theories of recovery, but their motion was denied. 147 N.H. at 4 5 3 . The court nevertheless determined that res judicata barred them from asserting those theories in a subsequent action. See also ERG, 137 N.H. at 190 (same;

12 concludes that the Superior Court’s dismissal of the

plaintiffs’ first action on statute of limitations grounds

constitutes an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res

judicata analysis.

Accordingly, the court determines that the Superior

Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ prior lawsuit against the original defendants bars the assertion of the claims asserted

against them in this action. The plaintiffs are correct that

this results in the denial of their claims against the

original defendants without any determination of whether they

are responsible for Thomas’s death. The court is sensitive to

the fact that this outcome may seem unfair to the plaintiffs,

particularly given the tragic circumstances alleged in this

case. This decision, however, is dictated by the application

of long-established rules designed to make the judicial process fair to all participants. The plaintiffs lost their

opportunity to have their negligence, products liability, and

consumer protection claims heard when those claims were not

brought within the statute of limitations. Similarly, they

lost their opportunity to have their warranty claims against

the original defendants heard when the claims were omitted

noting that plaintiff’s “remedy from the trial court’s denial of a motion to amend . . . [is] to appeal, not to file a new action”).

13 from the plaintiffs’ original lawsuit. As a result of these

missteps, the plaintiffs have lost their chance at a day in

court against these defendants.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss filed by

defendants Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling C o . , Pepsi

Bottling Group, Inc., and PepsiCo, Inc. (document n o . 1 5 ) is

GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A . DiClerico, J r . United States District Judge January 1 5 , 2004

cc: John A . Curran, Esquire Andrew D. Dunn, Esquire Glenn R. Milner, Esquire