Pollock, R. v. National Football League
171 A.3d 773
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Four ticketholders for Super Bowl XLV sued the NFL after being denied access to seats printed on their tickets because temporary seats lacked occupancy approval; no adequate alternative seats were offered.
- Plaintiffs initially sued in federal court asserting tort claims (negligent/fraudulent inducement, UTPCPL) and a breach‑of‑contract theory; they later amended to drop contract claims and proceed in tort.
- The federal district court dismissed the tort claims under the gist‑of‑the‑action/economic‑loss doctrines as mere contract disputes and then dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction (insufficient amount in controversy), noting the dismissal was without prejudice to refiling in state court.
- The Third Circuit affirmed that the claims were contractual in essence and that plaintiffs’ pleaded damages did not meet the federal jurisdictional threshold.
- Plaintiffs transferred the case to Pennsylvania state court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103, waited over two years, then moved for leave to file a second amended complaint reasserting tort and UTPCPL claims and adding breach of contract.
- The trial court denied leave to amend; the Superior Court affirmed, holding tort claims precluded by prior federal rulings and the contract claim time‑barred because plaintiffs had abandoned contract claims in federal court and untimely sought to replead them in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5103 preserves plaintiffs’ right to relitigate tort/UTPCPL claims in state court after federal dismissal without prejudice | § 5103 preserves claims timely filed in federal court; plaintiffs may refile tort and statutory claims in state court | Federal rulings adjudicated the merits of the tort claims; § 5103 does not revive claims already dismissed on the merits | Denied — tort/UTPCPL claims precluded (res judicata/collateral estoppel/law of the case); § 5103 did not preserve claims dismissed on the merits |
| Whether plaintiffs may add breach of contract claims in state court under § 5103 despite delay | § 5103 preserved original claims; contract claim was pled originally and thus not time‑barred | Plaintiffs abandoned contract claims in federal court; no contract claim existed at transfer; statute of limitations bars new contract claim | Denied — contract claim time‑barred because amended complaint in federal court eliminated the contract claim and plaintiffs waited too long to replead |
| Whether the federal court’s "without prejudice" dismissal required preserving tort claims for state litigation | Plaintiffs: "without prejudice" means claims can be reasserted in state court | NFL: "without prejudice" referred to contract remedy only; torts were dismissed on merits | Held for NFL — "without prejudice" did not resurrect tort claims adjudicated on merits |
| Whether § 5103 is unconstitutionally vague as‑applied | Plaintiffs: statute fails to give fair notice how to avoid limitations bar on transferred cases | NFL: no vagueness; plaintiffs waived constitutional challenge and their delay, not § 5103, caused the bar | Held for NFL — claim waived and meritless; § 5103 operates as written and did not cause plaintiffs’ delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarzwaelder v. Fox, 895 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review and discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment cannot state a viable claim)
- Pollock v. National Football League, [citation="553 F. App'x 270"] (3d Cir. 2014) (claims alleging failure to provide ticketed seats sound in contract; dismissal affirmed for failure to state viable tort claims and lack of jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 2000) (§ 5103 purpose: preserve claims timely filed in federal court so litigants aren't penalized for jurisdictional error)
- B.G. Balmer & Co. v. Frank Crystal & Co., Inc., 148 A.3d 454 (Pa. Super. 2016) (exposition of gist‑of‑the‑action doctrine barring tort claims that merely recast contract breaches)
- Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003) (law‑of‑the‑case principles limiting relitigation of issues decided earlier in the same action)