SOMERSET v. PARTNERS PHARMACY LLC
2:19-cv-19707
D.N.J.Nov 6, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Jerry Somerset, who is vision‑impaired, alleges he paid the down payment on a van that defendant Joseph Elam used in other businesses (Partners Pharmacy LLC and Strategic Delivery Systems LLC) without Somerset's permission.
- Somerset asserts ADA, contract, fraud, and related claims and later added an allegation that items transported included illegal opioids.
- Somerset previously sued Elam in state court (Somerset I) and lost at trial; he then filed a federal action (Somerset II) asserting many of the same claims.
- Somerset II was dismissed after amendment opportunities; by March 4, 2019, the remaining federal claims were dismissed with prejudice.
- Somerset filed the instant action (Somerset III) pro se and in forma pauperis; the district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismissed it as barred by res judicata/claim preclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim | Somerset presses ADA and related claims arising from the same van transaction and business uses | Prior adjudications dispose of the same claims and parties; dismissal appropriate | Dismissed under §1915(e) for failure to state a claim because of claim preclusion |
| Whether claim preclusion bars relitigation of claims after state and prior federal proceedings | Somerset contends new factual detail (e.g., alleged opioids) distinguishes the case | Under res judicata, claims arising from the same transaction that were or could have been litigated are barred | Preclusion applies: the new opioid allegation does not avoid res judicata because the core facts are the same |
| Whether the court may consider prior judgments on a §1915 screening / 12(b)(6)-type review | Somerset argues his pro se status and amended pleadings warrant liberal construction and further chances | Court may consider prior judicial decisions for their existence/legal effect on dismissal | Court considered prior federal and state rulings and dismissed on that basis under settled precedent |
| Whether Somerset had an available appellate or reconsideration remedy instead of refiling | Somerset previously filed a premature appeal and did not pursue appeal after final judgment | Defendants note remedies were appeal or reconsideration; refiling is improper | Court explains appellate/reconsideration remedies were the proper path; refiling barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly plausibility test)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- United States v. Athione Indus., Inc., 746 F.2d 977 (elements of claim preclusion)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (scope of res judicata barring claims that were or could have been raised)
- Rycoline Prods., Inc. v. C & W Unlimited, 109 F.3d 883 (consideration of prior judicial decisions on a motion to dismiss)
- Peloro v. United States, 488 F.3d 163 (elements of issue preclusion)
- Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59 (Third Circuit discussion of pleading standards)