Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc. v. Scranton Products, Inc.
3:14-cv-00853-RDM
M.D. Penn.May 16, 2017Background
- Scranton Products (SP) initially sued Bobrick in 2014 under the Lanham Act claiming Bobrick misrepresented SP’s HDPE (HOPE) toilet partitions; Bobrick later filed counterclaims and an amended answer asserting SP made false NFPA 286 compliance claims and engaged in unfair competition, abuse of process, and wrongful use of civil proceedings.
- Bobrick alleges SP represented its HOPE partitions passed unmodified NFPA 286 room-corner tests in 2011 and 2013, but the tests were manipulated (horizontal metal furring strips creating air gaps/fire blocks) and Western Fire’s test reports omitted required mounting details.
- Bobrick contends SP lacks contemporaneous documentation of the tested materials’ chemical composition, did not preserve tested specimens, and SP’s manufacturing records show many sold partitions materially differ from the formulations allegedly tested.
- Bobrick identifies multiple market communications (letters, emails, sales confirmations) in which SP and its agents asserted NFPA 286 compliance; Bobrick alleges those statements were false and known to be false by SP.
- Bobrick further alleges SP continued the litigation despite knowing its NFPA 286 claims were unsupported, engaged in discovery abuse (document destruction, misleading discovery responses), and ultimately voluntarily dismissed its suit and informed customers it could not assure NFPA 286 compliance—supporting abuse of process and punitive damages theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bobrick plausibly pleaded Pennsylvania common-law unfair competition based on false advertising | Bobrick: false NFPA 286 compliance claims caused commercial harm and fit Pennsylvania unfair competition (Restatement §1 supports deceptive marketing) | SP: Pennsylvania unfair competition is narrow and cannot be expanded to encompass these false-advertising allegations | Court: Denied dismissal; false and deceptive marketing can state unfair competition under Pennsylvania law |
| Whether Bobrick plausibly pleaded abuse of process | Bobrick: SP knowingly prosecuted a baseless suit to stifle competition, inflate Bobrick’s litigation costs, and used discovery tactics (spoliation, false affidavits) as a perversion of process | SP: Allowing the claim risks converting ordinary discovery disputes into abuse-of-process; allegations are conclusory | Court: Denied dismissal; allegations of prosecuting a baseless suit for improper competitive ends plus discovery misconduct plausibly state abuse of process |
| Whether punitive damages claim should be dismissed at pleading stage | Bobrick: factual allegations (knowledge of falsity, prolonged predatory litigation) support punitive damages | SP: Complaint lacks facts showing the outrageous, willful misconduct required under Pennsylvania law | Court: Denied dismissal; allegations, if proven, could support punitive damages and dismissal is premature |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice is appropriate | Bobrick: claims properly pleaded and supported by detailed factual allegations | SP: legal insufficiency warrants dismissal with prejudice | Court: Denied motion in its entirety (claims survive Rule 12(b)(6)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies Twombly pleading framework and plausibility analysis)
- Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223 (Third Circuit on pleading and rejecting legal conclusions)
- General Refractories Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297 (Third Circuit describing Pennsylvania abuse of process doctrine)
- Granite State Ins. Co. v. Aamco Transmissions, Inc., 57 F.3d 316 (Third Circuit on scope of unfair competition and Restatement §1)
- McGee v. Feege, 535 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court defining gist of abuse of process tort)