BARRETT v. TRI-COAST PHARMACY, INC., 518 F.Supp.3d 810

Plaintiff Joseph Barrett received injectable hCG in Dec. 2016 that allegedly came from Tri‑Coast Pharmacy; he developed systemic symptoms and later a bacterial infection requiring wrist surgery.
Tri‑Coast issued a recall in May 2017 for contaminated products; Plaintiff learned of the contamination from the recall.
Plaintiff sued Tri‑Coast and pharmacist/officer Kevin O’Connell asserting NJPLA, warranty, negligence, consumer‑fraud, IIED/NIED, and related claims; defendants were served but never answered.
Clerk entered default; Plaintiff moved for default judgment. The Court analyzed jurisdiction, default prerequisites (including military‑service affidavit), whether claims are viable or subsumed by the NJPLA, and the Emasco default‑judgment factors.
Court found a prima facie basis for specific personal jurisdiction over defendants and that Tri‑Coast’s NJPLA claims for manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn were plausibly pleaded; many other common‑law claims were subsumed by the NJPLA.
The motion was denied without prejudice: default judgment as to O’Connell denied for inadequate military affidavit; default judgment against Tri‑Coast stayed because the express‑warranty claim was not adequately pleaded/remaining and must be resolved or withdrawn before final judgment; a damages hearing was ordered if default is later entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction (specific)	Tri‑Coast and O’Connell purposefully directed contaminated products into NJ, causing Barrett’s injuries.	No responsive pleadings (no jurisdictional defense asserted).	Prima facie specific jurisdiction exists: minimum contacts and fair‑play factors satisfied.
Entry of default under Rule 55(a)	Service was effected; defendants failed to answer; clerk entered default.	No response from defendants.	Clerk entry of default was appropriate.
Viability of claims / NJPLA subsumption	Barrett asserts NJPLA counts plus negligence, CFA, warranties, IIED/NIED.	No response.	Most common‑law claims (negligence, negligence per se, implied warranty, CFA, IIED/NIED) are subsumed by the NJPLA; express‑warranty claim not adequately pleaded and must be resolved separately. Tri‑Coast plausibly alleged manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure‑to‑warn under NJPLA.
Default‑judgment prerequisites (military status; Emasco factors; damages)	Requests default judgment and damages (amount not a sum certain).	No appearance; no rebuttal.	O’Connell: default judgment denied without prejudice for failure to provide adequate military‑service affidavit. Tri‑Coast: Emasco factors favor default, but final default judgment deferred until express‑warranty claim is withdrawn/resolved; damages require evidentiary hearing.

Chanel, Inc. v. Gordashevsky, 558 F. Supp. 2d 532 (D.N.J. 2008) (district court accepts well‑pleaded facts on default)
Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142 (3d Cir. 1990) (default admits well‑pleaded factual allegations)
Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (Third Circuit preference to decide cases on merits rather than by default)
J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (U.S. 2011) (stream‑of‑commerce analysis for product contacts)
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (fair play and substantial justice forum factors)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment principles)
Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Telkom SA Ltd., 458 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2006) (assessing nature of contacts for specific jurisdiction)
Repola v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 934 F.2d 483 (3d Cir. 1991) (NJPLA provides exclusive product‑liability remedy)
Myrlak v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 157 N.J. 84 (N.J. 1999) (elements of a NJPLA claim)
Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2000) (factors for setting aside default judgment / Emasco analysis)