Southern States Cooperative Inc. v. I.S.P. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A.1:01CV31.,Civ.A.1:01CV31. |
| Citation | 198 F.Supp.2d 807 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | SOUTHERN STATES COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation, Plaintiff, v. I.S.P. COMPANY, INC., a West Virginia corporation; Steven J. Garvin, as President of I.S.P. Co. and Individually; and Diane E. Garvin, as a representative of I.S.P. Co. and Individually, Defendants. |
G. Thomas Smith, David C. Glover, Waters, Warner & Harris, Clarksburg, WV, for plaintiff.
Steven J. Garvin, pro se.
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
On February 28, 2002, the Court conducted a hearing regarding Southern States Cooperative, Incorporated's ("Southern States") motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for failure to state a claim pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Southern States appeared by its attorney and the defendants, Steven Garvin and Diane Garvin ("the Garvins"), appeared in person and without counsel.
At the hearing, the Court DENIED Southern States' motion to dismiss the counts in the counterclaim for negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranties and GRANTED its motion to dismiss the claims of abuse of process, violation of the West Virginia Commercial Feed Law and violation of the West Virginia Pesticide Control Act.
On a motion to dismiss, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant. Mayes v. Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 460 (4th Cir.1999).
The counterclaim filed by the Garvins alleges that they operated a thoroughbred breeding operation in Salem, West Virginia and purchased feed for all of their horses from Southern States' retail store located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. According to the Garvins, in April 2000, their prize stallion, Oswald, developed abscessed feet and contracted edema, and, on May 31, 2000, their brood mare, Grounds for Divorce, became bloated and died. During this time, the Garvins' other horses also became ill and bloated.
On June 4, 2000, Steven Garvin found Brodifacoum rodenticide, a rat poison, in a bag of feed purchased from Southern States. He immediately hired a veterinarian to examine his horses, and the veterinarian discovered that the blood clotting time in the horses was two times slower than the normal rate, a symptom compatible with rat poison consumption. The Garvins contend that, on June 7, 2000, employees of Southern States discovered chunks of rat poison in the supplies of whole corn at its Clarksburg store.
On June 13, 2000, a necropsy was performed on Grounds for Divorce that revealed "multiple areas of large ecchymotic lesions under the secrosal layer of the small intestine that appeared to be premortem, approximately three to four liters of hemorrhagic fluid in the pertoneal cavity and green stains on the liver." The Garvins allege that these symptoms also are compatible with rat poison consumption.
As a result of Oswald's declining health, he was euthanized on November 27, 2000. The Garvins then placed their remaining horses for adoption due to their ill health, devaluation and maintenance expenses.
On September 29, 2000, Southern States filed a complaint against I.S.P. and Steven Garvin to perpetuate testimony and facts relating to the condition of the horses and the defendants' land. Subject matter jurisdiction was premised on diversity jurisdiction. Southern States is incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in Virginia. The defendant, I.S.P., is incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in West Virginia, and the defendant Steven Garvin is a citizen and resident of West Virginia.
Following the parties' agreement that this civil action could be dismissed due to the pending federal and state civil lawsuits between the parties, the Court dismissed Case I with prejudice on June 18, 2001.
On February 28, 2001, Southern States sued I.S.P. and the Garvins in federal court, alleging defamation, product disparagement and tortious interference with business relationships. Subject matter jurisdiction again was based on the parties' diversity of citizenship.
The Garvins and I.S.P. filed an answer and counterclaim on June 29, 2001. That counterclaim alleges that Southern States violated provisions of West Virginia's Uniform Commercial Code, Commercial Feed Law and Pesticide Control Act. Additionally, there are claims for negligence, strict liability and abuse of process. Southern States has filed a motion to dismiss Case II.
On March 7, 2001, Steve Garvin and I.S.P. sued Southern States in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, alleging the same violations of West Virginia's Commercial Feed Law, Pesticide Control Act and Uniform Commercial Code and claims for negligence and strict liability pending in federal court. In addition, the complaint alleged violations of West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act and contained a claim for breach of contract, but it did not allege an abuse of process claim. Southern States filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on April 10, 2001, which the circuit court denied on January 29, 2002.
Because the counterclaim in federal court essentially presents the same claims as those alleged in state court, this Court must determine whether the circuit court's ruling on the motion to dismiss has any preclusive effect on the action here.
"A federal court, as a matter of full faith and credit, under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as the courts of such State would give." Heckert v. Dotson, 272 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir.2001); 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
"The Supreme Court and our cases have made clear that a federal court must `refer to the preclusion law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.'" Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985); Heckert v. Dotson, 272 F.3d at 257.
In West Virginia, "under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action." Blake v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 201 W.Va. 469, 476, 498 S.E.2d 41, 48 (W.Va. 1997); Porter v. McPherson, 198 W.Va. 158, 166, 479 S.E.2d 668, 676 (W.Va.1996). "The rationale underlying the preclusive effect of res judicata is to avoid `the expense and vexation' attending relitigation of causes of action which have been fully and fairly decided." Blake, 201 W.Va. at 476, 498 S.E.2d at 48; Sattler v. Bailey, 184 W.Va. 212, 217, 400 S.E.2d 220, 225 (W.Va.1990).
Comparing the identity of two suits for purposes of res judicata, West Virginia's highest court, has stated:
"A cause of action" is the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of action, the existence of which affords a party a right to judicial relief. The test to determine if the cause of action involved in the two suits is identical is to inquire whether the same evidence would support both actions or issues. If the two cases require substantially different evidence to sustain them, the second cannot be said to be the same cause of action and barred by res judicata.
Blake, 201 W.Va. at 476, 498 S.E.2d at 48; White v. SWCC, 164 W.Va. 284, 290, 262 S.E.2d 752, 756 (W.Va.1980).
The requirements of the doctrine of res judicata contemplate a final adjudication by a court that has jurisdiction of both the subject matter and the parties in the litigation, "not only as to the matters actually determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated as incident thereto and coming within the legitimate purview of the subject-matter of the action." Blake, 201 W.Va. at 476-477, 498 S.E.2d at 48-49. In the state case filed by the Garvins, the circuit court denied Southern States' motion to dismiss as to all claims, including those currently pending in this Court.
Pursuant to W.Va.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a dismissal of claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and without reservation of any issue, is presumed to be on the merits. Sprouse v. Clay Communication, Inc., 158 W.Va. 427, 461, 211 S.E.2d 674, 696 (W.Va.1975). Here, however, Southern States' motion to dismiss was denied and all claims remain pending.
Thus, the circuit court's ruling did not amount to a final adjudication on the merits. See Arroyo v. K-Mart, Inc., 81 F.Supp.2d 301, 310 n. 18 (D.P.R.1999) (); Laing v. Shanberg, 13 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1191 (D.Kan.1998) ().
"A final judgment of one court in an in personam case ordinarily will preclude further duplicative proceedings in the other court." Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 84 S.Ct. 1579, 12 L.Ed.2d 409 (1964) (); MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 3D § 120.20(3).
Because no final judgment was entered in state court, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the case in this Court.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), dismissals are rarely granted. Rogers v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 883 F.2d 324, 325 (4th Cir.1989). Generally, a court should not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim "unless it appears certain that the [claimant] can prove no set of facts which would support its claim and would entitle it to relief." Mylan Lab., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballock v. Costlow, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV52
...issuance, but is necessary to the use, of the process, in order to sustain an action of this character. S. States Coop. Inc. v. I.S.P. Co., 198 F. Supp. 2d 807, 816 (N.D. W. Va. 2002) (quoting Preiser, 352 S.E.2d at 28-29 ).The decision in Rahmi v. Sovereign Bank N.A. highlights the differe......
-
Miller v. Ashton
...at 278, n. 8 (quoting W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 121 (1971) (emphasis added); see also Southern States Cooperative Inc. v. I.S.P. Co., Inc., 198 F. Supp. 2d 807, 816 (finding that payment of attorney fees and other expenses associated with the litigation do not prevent dismi......
-
Hoback v. Cox
... ... Civil Action No. 3:19-0460 United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division ... Virginia, Inc. (“LAWV”). [ 1 ] Stone began investigating ... In ... Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Higginbotham , 721 ... S.E.2d 541 ... ...
-
Burnette v. Wooton, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-00956
...the tort.Id. "[T]he mere filing of a complaint does not give rise to a claim for abuse of process." S. States Coop. Inc. v. I.S.P. Co., 198 F.Supp.2d 807, 816 (N.D.W. Va. 2002) (quoting Riddell Sports Inc. v. Brooks, 872 F.Supp. 73, 79 (S.D.N.Y.)). The Complaint sufficiently pleads the fact......