Hatch v. Trail King Industries, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22632
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Hatch v. Trail King involved alleged post-sale conduct claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A arising from a 2007 workplace injury case against Trail King.
- The district court denied leave to amend the 2007 complaint to add 93A claims as untimely, and plaintiffs did not appeal that denial.
- The 2007 action proceeded to a merits trial resulting in a jury verdict for Trail King in 2010 and final judgment in 2010.
- Plaintiffs later filed a separate Massachusetts action (2010) asserting the same 93A claims; Trail King removed and moved to dismiss, staying the case.
- The district court dismissed the 93A action with prejudice as impermissible claim-splitting, citing identity of issues with the prior trial.
- The First Circuit held that claim preclusion bars the later 93A action despite § 9(8), applying Massachusetts law or federal preclusion law, with the outcome the same.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 93A § 9(8) creates an exception to claim preclusion. | Hatch argues § 9(8) overrides preclusion regardless of appeal. | Trail King contends § 9(8) does not override standard claim preclusion rules. | No exception; § 9(8) does not defeat preclusion here. |
| What law governs the preclusion analysis in successive diversity actions. | Massachusetts law governs preclusion under Semtek considerations. | Federal preclusion law should apply in diversity contexts. | Either federal or Massachusetts law yields the same result; proceeding under Semtek, outcome identical. |
| Whether denial of leave to amend in the first action precludes later 93A claims. | denial should not bar new, separate 93A action. | denial constitutes final adjudication on the merits and bars later claims. | Yes; denial of leave to amend, not appealed, subjects 93A claims to claim preclusion. |
| Whether plaintiff estoppel or acquiescence by Trail King affects preclusion. | Trail King's acquiescence estops preclusion defenses. | No estoppel; positions were consistent and no unfair advantage occurred. | No estoppel; assertions rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (choice-of-law in successive diversity actions; Erie considerations)
- Anderson v. Phoenix Investment Counsel of Boston, Inc., 440 N.E.2d 1164 (Mass. 1982) (federal res judicata when determining preclusive effect of federal judgment)
- Johnson v. SCA Disposal Servs. of New Eng., Inc., 931 F.2d 970 (1st Cir. 1991) (appeal as recourse when motion to amend denied)
- Osserman v. Jacobs, 339 N.E.2d 193 (Mass. 1975) (denial of leave to amend bars later action on same claim)
- Breneman v. U.S. ex rel. FAA, 381 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2004) ( Restatement-based justification for claim preclusion after untimely amendment)
- Kobrin v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 832 N.E.2d 634 (Mass. 2005) (Massachusetts preclusion principles; three-element test)