Jackson v. Dow Chemical Co.
902 F. Supp. 2d 658
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiff Mark Jackson is a CPA who formerly worked for Rohm and Haas (R&H).
- Jackson pursued multiple federal/state suits beginning in 2003 (Jackson I–IV) alleging misconduct by R&H, its employees, and related defendants.
- Jackson I involved a RICO claim and state-law claims ultimately dismissed; the dismissal was a sanctioned, final judgment on the merits.
- Jackson II and III followed with related RICO/ERISA-like and disability-benefits disputes; consolidated into CAC in 2008.
- Jackson IV, filed in 2010 in Delaware, alleges 19 counts; venue was later transferred to this court, and the current motions to dismiss were filed in 2011.
- The court grants the motions to dismiss on res judicata/claim preclusion grounds, dismissing claims with prejudice as to all defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior final judgment on the merits bars current claims | Jackson seeks to avoid preclusion by arguing sanctions were not on the merits | Defendants argue dismissal was a sanction under Poulis and thus merits-based for preclusion | Yes; prior dismissal was on the merits for preclusion purposes |
| Whether privity/close relationship extends preclusion to related defendants | Jackson contends defendants lack privity with prior parties | Court finds close/significant relationships (alter egos, employees, counsel) suffice | Yes; privity/close relationship extend preclusion to these defendants |
| Whether Counts V and XI (RICO/Indiana RICO) are precluded | Counts V and XI rely on precluded events | Counts are substantively precluded as they are essentially the same claims | Yes; Counts V and XI precluded |
| Whether remaining claims survive given the prior preclusion | Jackson argues some claims are distinct | All claims are precluded by prior judgment | No; all claims precluded; case dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullarkey v. Tamboer (In re Mullarkey), 536 F.3d 215 (3d Cir.2008) (claim preclusion from prior final judgment on the merits)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984) (sanctions-based dismissal treated as adjudication on the merits)
- Iqbal v. United States, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (heightened pleading not required; plausibility standard)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (federal claim preclusion and forum shopping limitations)
- Dillard v. Security Pacific Brokers, Inc., 835 F.2d 607 (5th Cir.1988) (adjudication on the merits for preclusion in sanction contexts)
- Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1961) (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders bar later action)