*1 FORNAROTTO, Appellant, Joseph COM WATERWORKS
AMERICAN Jersey-American INC.;
PANY, Company-Eastern Division.
Water
No. 97-5332. Appeals, States Court
United
Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 1998. May
Decided
еmployment compensation profit.” for App. at 24. 1990, 8, April Fornarotto’s union
On was walking picket on strike. He was line when he was struck an automobile driven Chiapetta, Michael who was also a New Jersey-American employee.1 Fornarotto was hospitalized approximately days in for cer- Gijanto, (Argued), Schibell & Joseph L. lumbar traction. After his vical and dis- NJ, L.L.C., Ocean, Attorneys Mennie, for charge, physical he underwent a course of Appellant. neck, therapy for his knee. back and (Ar- 1990, arthroscopic he underwent sur- Rhoad June Rosenberg, Robert D. Ezra D. knee, Rhoads, Princeton, gery began on his and a new course of Dechert, Price & gued), physical therapy. NJ, Attorneys Appellees. for 11, 1990, per- On June Fornarotto filed GREENBERG, and Before: NYGAARD against Chiapetta, sоnal and McKEE, Judges. Circuit Jersey-American, Superior in the Court New Division, Jersey, of New Law Monmouth THE COURT OPINION OF County. Chiapetta Fornarotto v. and New Waterworks, Co., Jersey-American No. McKEE, Judge. Circuit Thereafter, MON-L-54564-90. Fornarotto appeals from the dis- Joseph Fornarotto Jersey-American. returned to work at New summary judgment grant trict court’s experienced he soon additional Jersey-American employer, New favor of his knee, began experi- problems with his court ruled Company. The district Water 1992, encing In March of severe headaches. un- was barred that this suit under ERISA arthroscopic surgery a second on his he had Jersey’s controversy doctrine der continuing to suffer severe knee and was previously filed tort ac- Fomarotto’s because began that first after the accident. headaches sufficiently to the instant tion was related therapy physical Fornarotto continued application of that doctrine. trigger action to May until of 1992 when he was admitted to reverse that follow we will For the reasons put in He hospital again traction. proceedings consis- for further and remand week, but his was released after about opinion. tent with well, go he eventu- rehabilitation did not physical ally surgery. His needed back I. surgery, problems persisted even after that lingering effects of his and as a result employed by the New Jer- Fornarotto was concentrating, injuries, problems had sit- he (a Company subsidiary sey-Ameriean Water bending, ting, standing, lifting or and was Inc.) Company, of American Waterworks activity engage any for more unable to 7, 1966 until nearly years, from March applied period of time. He than a short 23, Jersey-Ameri- January a New 1995. As employer’s disability under his bene- benefits par- eligible to employee, can Fornarotto was requests for bene- plan, fits but his pension plan which ticipate company’s in the denied, appeal his final fits were eligi- provided levels of benefits to rejected May that decision employees, depending upon the circum- ble January has not worked since Fornarotto working they stopped stances under which totally claims that he has been company. include dis- for the Those benefits then. disabled since alia, benefits, if, ability inter retirement 5, 1995, filed a September Fornarotto is “unable On employee becomes disabled and complaint Superior Court of New Jer- any occupatiоn or permanently engage acting Chiapetta the accident. claimed that 1. Fornarotto employment time of the course of his at the Division, County, adjudication is that the Monmouth
sey, Law litigation and New Jer- should in one Waterworks occur against American court; the civil en- under in- sey-Ameriean accordingly, Waterworks in one Employee Re- provisions litigation very at the forcement volved in' should (“ERISA”), 29 Security Act Income present tirement all of proceeding least their *3 1132(a)(1)(B), seeking § U.S.C. to the claims and defenses that are related by the being disáblied by reason benefits underlying controversy. automobile acci- injuries he sustained (3rd Corp., 754, 761 v. Witco 117 F.3d Venuto 1995, 27, the defendants October dent.2 On Cir.1997). district ERISA action to federal
removed 1996, Jersey. in New November objectives “The behind the doctrine injury ac- personal state court Fornarotto’s (1) encourage compre are threefold: $450,000, Stipula- and a was settled tion of a hensive and conclusive determination Prejudice was filed. of Dismissal with tion (2) controversy; party fair legal to achieve 1997, thereafter, 7, February de- Shortly (3) promote judicial economy ness and summary judg- filed a motion for fendants efficiency by fragmented, multi avoiding and in Fornarotto’s removed ERISA ment duplicative ple litigation.” and doc action arose They alleged that judicial concept trine is a “basic adminis Fornarotto’s same set of as from the facts dimension,” is of tration constitutional therefore action and was ¶ 4.4 viz., VI, 3, (1947), § N.J. Const. art. controversy Jersey’s by New entire barred Antiles, 253, v. 662 A.2d DiTrolio N.J. agreed The district court and doctrinе. 494, 502 summary judgment mo- granted defendants’ appeal This followed.3 tion. rule common law evolved from
n.
joinder,
efficiency,
concerns of
but has
been
its current ex
since
and finds
codified
controversy
The “entire
pression in Rute 4:30A of the New
aspects
legal
assure that all
seeks to
Procedure,
provides:
Rules of Civil
v.
dispute
single
lawsuit.” Olds
occur
633,
Donnelly, 150
696 A.2d
N.J.
Non-joinder
parties required
of claims or
(1997). Although
judicata principles
res
by
joined
controversy
doc-
to be
entire
controversy
Jersey’s entire
doctrine are
preclusion
trine shall result in
relatives,”
Jersey’s
the latter is New
“blood
required by
claims to
omitted
the extent
idiosyncratic, application of tra
“specific, and
doctrine,
controversy
except
as
judicata
Rycoline
.principles.”
res
ditional
(foreclo-
provided by
otherwise
R. 4:64-5
Unlimited,
Products, Inc. v.
109 F.3d
C & W
actions)
4:67-4(a) (leave re-
and R.
sure
886 (3d Cir.1997).
encom
The doctrine
quired for
crossclaims in
counterclaims or
passes
concepts of claims
traditional
actions).5
summary
joinder,
Donnelly,
party
v.
well as
Olds
as
637, though
involving
cases
as is
true with
infamous
predominate.
latter
against perpetuities”,
“rule
the entire contro-
recited,
principle
easily
the in-
is
but often
The fundamental
behind
policy,
controversy
deceptively
appli-
problematic
of the entire
elusive
clusion
Court,
jurisdiction
Subjecl
Supreme
2. State courts have concurrent
rules of the
partici-
Chancery
courts for actions
an ERISA
Law Division and
Division shall
federal
1132(a)(1)(B).
§
powers
pant under 29 U.S.C.
29 U.S.C.
each exercise the
and functions of the
1132(e)(1).
§
justice
othеr division when the ends of
so re-
quire,
equitable
relief should be
any
subject
granted
grant
cause so that all matters
3. We
the district court’s
of sum
may
mary judgment
plenary
between
be com-
re
defendants
Schering-Plough Corp.,
pletely
v.
901 F.2d
determined.
view. Turner
(3d
1990).
Cir.
origins
a discussion of
and evolution of
5. For
Olds,
seq.
provision
doctrine see
at 636 et
4. The constitutional
reads:
single
that those suits do not constitute a
it is often difficult to
This
because
cation.6
legal controver-
parameters of “a
transaction”. This action is therefore not
define
precision
litigation”
with the
sy” or “one
barred
the entire
doctrine.
by the doctrine.
suggested
An examination of the facts in
DiTrolio
successive claims
determining whether
There,
physician,
Antiles is instructive.
purposes of
constitute one
privileges
was denied staff
аt a
doctrine,
controversy]
the cen-
[entire
hospital,
hospital
and he sued the
and its
the claims
question is whether
tral
challenging
procedures
board of trustees
parties arise
related
the different
deny
position
hospital’s
used to
him a
on the
transaction or series
facts or the same
gravamen
staff. The
of that suit was that
It
the core set of facts
transactions.
physicians
comprised
the four
who
the urolo-
link
distinct
provides the
between
*4
gy department,
competition
who were all in
par-
or
against the same
claims
him,
improperly
hospital
had
caused the
requirement
they
that
triggers the
ties and
deny
days
A
application.
mere six
proceeding.
in one
One
be determined
after DiTrolio entered into the settlement
are
distinct claims
measure of whеther
agreement
litigation,
that
that
he
ended
controversy is whether
part of an entire
brought
against
action
four
second
those
interest
parties
significant
have a
physicians whose conduct had formed the
claim,
that
disposition
particular
one
hospital.
of his suit
basis
materially af-
may materially affect or be
granted
trial court
the defendants’ motion to
disposition of that claim.
fected
the second suit under the entire con-
dismiss
claims are “related”
The test for whether
join
troversy
for failure to
them in
brought
single
they
that
must be
such
Jersey Supreme
action. The New
the first
Jersey entire contro-
under the New
action
agreed. The court concluded that the
Court
parties
follows: if
as
[is]
plaintiffs
fatal flaw in the second suit was
will,
judgment
persons
after final
or
parties
jоin
physicians
the four
as
failure
entered,
engage in
likely to have to
be
in the first action. Id. at 508.
conclusively dispose
litigation
additional
of
and
respective
of their
bundles
Here,
are concerned with Fornarotto’s
we
single
transac-
that derive from
liabilities
claims,
parties,
join
failure to
but that
transactions,
of
tion or related series
of
distinction does not alter
substance
dispute
components of the
or con-
omitted
analysis.
the court stated
our
regarded
constituting
as
troversy must be
consideration is
that
the “determinative
mandatory
litiga-
unit of
of one
element
aspects of a
the distinct claims are
whether
tion.
they arise
single larger
because
(citations
Antiles,
judgment obtained
coverage.
addition,
its
carrier
if
language
the extent of
The
even
third-party
com-
then
an answer
be stretched to cover
filed
doctrine could
declaratory
claim,
plaint
for a
it
and a counterclaim
we conclude that
error
coverage
The
judgment
rely
as to the
issue.
for the
on the
district court
Despite
to vacate the
under these
carrier also moved
order.
circumstances.
the doc
prior
except
apparent
its
rigidity,
trial court vacated
order
trine’s
courts
third-party
clearly
as
jоinder
of the carrier
have
to be applied
stated that
is not
ordered
rigid
defendant and further
that all issues
from concepts
manner divorced
complaint,
third-party
equity
“[P]arty
raised
com-
fairness
fairness.
is crit
declaratory judgment
plaint and the
counter-
ical in the
of the doctrine.”
application
Cog
joined in
Hospital
claim
be
Orange,
should
dell v.
Center
N.J.
granted
Finally,
per-
the trial court
“Equitable
the wife
con
complaint setting
an amended
mandatory-joinder
mission to file
siderations can relax
re
forth
for PIP benefits
quirements
a claim
under an auto-
would be unfair.”
Id.,
(internal
omitted).
policy issued
carrier.
quotations
mobile
same
Indeed,
polestar
application
of the
“[t]he
an interlocutory appeal
The carrier filed
rule is judicial
‘fairness’
alia, that the
contending, inter
entire contro-
application
504. Strict
doc
A.2d
require
doctrine did
the issues
simply
trine here was
not fair.
coverage and PIP
relating to
benefits be
joined
A
inquiry
matrimonial-tort
under the entire
in the
action. The
“fairness”
con-
troversy
appellate
stating:
agreed
specific
doctrine has a
focus: “Fair-
ness,
joinder,
party
context of
focuses
complaint
third-party
carri-
[the
parties,
on basic
espe-
fairness to all of the
do not
er’s] counterclaim
involve common
cially those
second suit who
sued
were
*7
questions
law with
of fact or
those raised
prevented
in
participating
the first.”
complaint.
Plaintiff seeks a dissolu-
protective
Id.
concept
“Fairness is thus
marriage, equitable
tion of the
distribution
primarily
that focuses
on whether defеndants
inju-
damages
of the marital assets and
in
position
would be
to defend
better
them-
ries sustained as
result of the defen-
selves if
against
the claims
them had been
wrongdoing,
dant’s
whereas the amended
litigation.”
raised and
in the first
asserted
complaint
complaint, third-party
and coun-
key
505. A
determination whether
present
relating
terclaim
issues
to the in-
disadvantaged
the defendants “are now
be-
coverage afforded by
surance
carri-
[the
they
cause
to
litiga-
were not
the first
policies.
These
not have
er’s]
do
tion.” Id.
commonality required
joinder
the
for a
relating
third-party
under
rules
[the
Here,
employer
Fornarotto’s
was
defen-
practice].
they
Nor do
constitute one or
in
dant
both
action
the
more
the bundle
and liabilities
early
the ERISA
It knew
action.
from,
derive
or Fornаrotto
claiming
that he was
husband-wife
dis-
tortfeasor-injured person relationship
fact,
employer argues
In
through-
abled.
plaintiff and
which should be
disability
out its brief
defendant
that Fornarotto’s
is the
disposed
litigation.
unit
in one
key
personal injury
issue in
both
ERISA action.
7-8,
added).
(emphasis
Id. at
Each However, Jersey-Ameriean toas whether the 506. pleading a certification did any controversy subject is the not file to matter an answer Fornarotto’s ERISA any рending court or Instead, action complaint. other it removed the ERISA proceeding, or whether pending arbitration then, to action court and after it district proceeding arbitration any or other action action, settled Fornarotto’s and, so, if certifica- contemplated; is to moved dismiss the ERISA action under identify par- such actions and all tion shall controversy By doctrine.9 remov .entire Further, party each shall ties thereto. ing filing court and federal then certification the names of in the disclose personal injury a motion after the to dismiss any joined who should party be other settled, employer’s action was counsel party shall a con- Each have clearly maneuvered Fomarotto not out during the course of the tinuing obligation having to state court to alert the the need and serve on all other litigation to file the matters. Defense counsel consolidate court with the an amended thereby kept controversy the entire arrow change if there is certification poised to at the ERISA action strike follow original certification. stated facts ing its removal to federal court. We do not joinder may compel par- court question or defense counsel’s tactics steward circumstances, either appropriate ties in ship in neither doing so. can we upon party. motion or that of a its own ignore conducting inquiry his tactics when an 4:5—1(b)(2). Rule When Fornarotto’s ERISA applying into the con fairness entire filed, 4:5-1 complaint was it contained a Rule troversy controversy The entire doctrine. recited, alia, inter certification which to be trap doctrine was never “intended subject is the “matter in Joel, unwary.” 1041. contemplated any court ac- pending other fact, preclusion always “remedy is of last arbitration____” App. tion or at 3. Whether Olds, resort.” remained accurate or not is statement are The limits of the doctrine reached employer filed an an- immaterial. Had its result application signifi “would complaint in the New swer to the ERISA jeopardy presen cant to a unfairness or clear court, required have been it would just tation the issues and a result.” Cris That file Rule 4:5-1 certification. its own A.G., pin v. Volkswagenwerk, A.2d court would have informed the certification Indeed, “[(Implicit in the development that, opinion, in its i.e., of the entire doctrine is rec action, to a rеlated ognition that economies and efficient ad personal injury action. matters could justice not be ministration of should achieved then the state trial have been consolidated expense paramount at the responsibility court’s of these concerns.” “It is the trial courts. “[Bjecause appro- or not doc determine whether case, priate litigants equitable principle, applicabili- trine is an its given thus tion, understand, argument, 9. At we were there hut reasons we cannot oral informed that exchange of letters between counsel for issue of reservation of Fomarotto’s represented and counsel who the em- Fomarotto ployer argued Normally, court. we never to the district *9 action, who, injury personal the we in grant court's would revеrse the district of sum- case, note, employer's are not the counsel in mary evidentiary judgment an and remand for concerning wording the of the for the release However, rights. hearing on the reservation of personal injury Those settlement of the controversy because we that the entire believe indicating letters could be read as that there was applied doctrine he to bar Fomarot- should not agreement whereby reserved his Fomarotto action, necessary is not remand to’s ERISA it to rights proceed despite ERISA to in his action a to whether in determination as there was employer personal having released the in the rights proceed a to fact of in the .reservation injury apparently were at- action. Those letters ERISA action. summary judgment the mo- tached as exhibits to
285
compensation
sought
wages
on the
for the
he
ty
judicial discretion based
lost
left to
given
totally
in
when he
inherent
became
disabled as
particular circumstances
result
injuries.
Development Corp.
personal injury suit,
v. of those
In
Mystic Isle
case.”
Nehmad,
310,
prove
Mr.
142 N.J.
Fornarotto would have had to
&
Perskie
omitted).10
(1995) (citations
523,
injuries, including
extent of his
his total
530
dis-
suit,
ability.
again
he would
Here,
ex-
hold that
district court
we
prove
injuries
have had to
left
that his
him
controversy
limits of the entire
ceeded
Thus,
totally disabled.
both lawsuits stem
it
to
by stretching
apply to an
doctrine
from the
of facts: the
same core set
extent of
under the circumstances of
ERISA
injury
resulting from the accident. When
this ease.
occurred,
rights”
the accident
the “bundles of
compen-
that accrued
included
to Fornarotto
Y.
(1)
(2)
injury
physical
sation
both
lost
reasons,
will re-
For
of the above
we
I
resulting
income
from that accident.
con-
for fur-
verse
remand
the district
tinue to
controversy
believe that the entire
proceedings.
ther
required
dispose
doctrine
Mr. Fornarotto to
rights
proceeding.
óf those
in one
NYGAARD,
Judge, dissenting.
Circuit
Indeed, everyone acknowledges that
I
I -believe the district
because
dissent
Although
two suits
facts.
share common
conclusion,
harsh,
though
is correct:
court’s
personal
negli-
suit involved issues
controversy
applies.
doctrine
The
entire
gence
implicated
that
in the
were
ERISA
successive lawsuits that “arise
doctrine bars
suit, that is
“The entire
irrelevant.
contro-
from
or the same transaction or
related facts
require commonality
doctrine does not
It is the core set of
series of transactions.
Rather,
legal
issues.
determinative
link
provides
facts
between distinct
that
consideration
distinct
is whether
claims are
against the same
controversy
aspects
single larger
of a
be-
requirement
they be
triggers
that
they
cause
from interrelated facts.”
arise
proceeding!”
v.
determined in one
DiTrolio
494,
would
(3d
Co.,
Cir.1993),
upheld
Instead, separate chose to file a he September
action in the same court on New-Jersey American removed
1995. 27, 1995, and the
ERISA suit October suit settled
November, Thus, separate law- 1996. two arising out of the same event were
suits settlement, (see exchanged Maj. merely economy first the letters is not to save us 1. Judicial work; 9), litigants summary Op. judgment to all other suits and it redounds and the motion for n. attention and whose causes who are thus denied that Mr. Fornarotto suffered a lead me to believe meanwhile must remain untried. procedural punch,” which he was "sucker unprotected, and which he was denied disabil- compassion for Mr. Fomarot- I am not without profession ity law is reduced to benefits. The may legitimate be to. Whatever rationale there practiced with informed zeal a mere trade if not attorney that led his to risk the ERISA action honor; shortage of both here. I see suit, separate apparent filing is not from this removal, Moreover, timing record.