U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F N E W H AM P S H I R E

C h a y n a D r a p e a u , e t a l.

v. Ca se No. 22-cv-00150-P B Opin ion No.

B lu e s t e m B r a n d s , I n c ., e t a l.

ME MO R AN D U M AN D O R D E R

Ch a yn a Dr a pea u a n d h er eigh t -yea r -old son Ben wer e sever ely bu r n ed

wh en t h e lid of a pr essu r e cooker Dr a pea u wa s u sin g exploded. Dr a pea u a n d

h er h u sba n d, Vin cen t , h a ve su ed sever a l dom est ic a n d in t er n a t ion a l en t it ies

in volved in t h e design , m a n u fa ct u r e, t est in g, a n d m a r ket in g of t h e pr essu r e

cooker . Th e Dr a pea u s a sser t a va r iet y of cla im s, on ly t wo of wh ich a r e a t

issu e h er e: n egligen ce a n d viola t ion of t h e New H a m psh ir e Con su m er

P r ot ect ion Act (CP A). Defen da n t In t er t ek Test in g Ser vices NA, In c. (ITS)

m oves t o dism iss t h ose cla im s pu r su a n t t o F eder a l Ru le of Civil P r ocedu r e

12(b)(6). F or t h e r ea son s set for t h below, I gr a n t t h e m ot ion in pa r t a n d den y

it in pa r t .

I . B AC K G R O U N D

A. T h e Alle g e d Ma lfu n c t io n

On F ebr u a r y 14, 2020, Ch a yn a Dr a pea u pu r ch a sed a Ch ef’s Ma r k

P r efer r ed Qu a lit y 10-Qu a r t E lect r ic P r essu r e Cooker (“t h e pr essu r e cooker ”) fr om Blu est em ’s F in ger h u t Ca t a log. Doc. 73 a t 13. Th e pr odu ct wa s sen t t o

h er h om e in Som er swor t h , N ew H a m psh ir e, on F ebr u a r y 17, 2020.

On Au gu st 22, 2021, wh ile pr epa r in g a st ew wit h h er son , Dr a pea u

locked t h e pr essu r e cooker ’s lid a n d bega n t h e cookin g pr ocess.

a t 14.

Aft er h ea r in g t h e r elea se va lve a ct iva t e, sh e t u r n ed t h e oper a t in g va lve t o t h e

st ea m r elea se posit ion .

Wh en sh e a t t em pt ed t o u n lock t h e lid sever a l

m in u t es la t er , t h e fa st en in g m ech a n ism disen ga ged, a n d t h e cover open ed

befor e t h e pr essu r e h a d fu lly r elea sed.

a t 15. Th e su dden r elea se of

pr essu r e ca u sed t h e lid t o det a ch explosively, pr opellin g sca ldin g liqu id on t o

Dr a pea u a n d h er son , wh o wa s st a n din g n ea r by.

Bot h su ffer ed sever e

bu r n s, in clu din g in ju r ies t o t h e ch ild’s fa ce a n d ch est .

a t 15-16.

B. Th e P r essu r e Cook er

Th e pr essu r e cooker wa s sold in t h e Un it ed St a t es by Blu est em Br a n ds,

In c., a Dela wa r e cor por a t ion wit h it s pr in cipa l pla ce of bu sin ess in

Min n esot a . 1

a t 2. Blu est em con t r a ct ed wit h LF Cen t en n ia l P t e., a H on g

Kon g-ba sed en t it y doin g bu sin ess a s “Li a n d F u n g,” t o ser ve a s it s

in t er n a t ion a l bu yin g a gen t .

a t 8. Blu est em a n d Li a n d F u n g ou t sou r ced

1 Blu est em Br a n ds, In c. filed for ba n kr u pt cy in 2020 a n d n egot ia t ed a sa le of su bst a n t ia lly a ll it s a sset s t o BLST Oper a t in g Com pa n y, LLC. F or cla r it y’s sa ke a n d beca u se t h e pa r t ies r efer t o t h is en t it y a s “Blu est em ” in t h eir br iefs, I do so h er e.

2 t h e t est in g, in spect ion , a n d cer t ifica t ion of t h e pr essu r e cooker t o a gr ou p of

r ela t ed en t it ies, in clu din g ITS, wh ich n ow m oves t o dism iss.

C. P r o c e d u r a l H is t o r y

P la in t iffs a sser t five cla im s a ga in st ITS: (1) st r ict pr odu ct lia bilit y,

(2) n egligen ce, (3) br ea ch of expr ess wa r r a n t y, (4) br ea ch of im plied wa r r a n t y,

a n d (5) viola t ion of t h e CP A. See

a t 19-33. Vin cen t Dr a pea u a lso br in gs a

der iva t ive cla im for loss of con sor t iu m .

a t 33. ITS m oved t o dism iss a ll of

t h e cla im s a ga in st it on Sept em ber 4, 2024. See Doc. 77-1. In t h eir object ion

t o ITS’s m ot ion , pla in t iffs con cede t h a t dism issa l is a ppr opr ia t e for t h e st r ict

lia bilit y a n d wa r r a n t y cla im s. See Doc. 79-1 a t 2. Accor din gly, I dism iss t h ose

cla im s wit h ou t fu r t h er a n a lysis a n d t u r n t o ITS’s a r gu m en t t h a t t h e

n egligen ce a n d CP A cla im s sh ou ld a lso be dism issed.

I I . S T AN D AR D O F R E VI E W

To su r vive a m ot ion t o dism iss for fa ilu r e t o st a t e a cla im , a pla in t iff

m u st a llege fa ct s su fficien t t o “st a t e a cla im t o r elief t h a t is pla u sible on it s

fa ce.” Ash cr oft v. Iqba l,

(2009) (qu ot in g Bell At l. Cor p. v.

Twom bly,

(2007)). A cla im is fa cia lly pla u sible if it plea ds

“fa ct u a l con t en t t h a t a llows t h e cou r t t o dr a w t h e r ea son a ble in fer en ce t h a t

t h e defen da n t is lia ble for t h e m iscon du ct a lleged.”

3 In t est in g a com pla in t ’s su fficien cy, I em ploy a t wo-st ep a ppr oa ch . See

Oca sio-H er n a n dez v. F or t u n o-Bu r set , 640 F .3d 1, 12 (1st Cir . 2011). F ir st , I

scr een t h e com pla in t for st a t em en t s t h a t “m er ely offer lega l con clu sion s

cou ch ed a s fa ct or t h r ea dba r e r ecit a ls of t h e elem en t s of a ca u se of a ct ion .”

(clea n ed u p). A cla im con sist in g of lit t le m or e t h a n “a llega t ion s t h a t m er ely

pa r r ot t h e elem en t s of t h e ca u se of a ct ion ” m a y be dism issed.

Secon d, I

cr edit a s t r u e a ll of t h e pla in t iff’s n on -con clu sor y fa ct u a l a llega t ion s a n d t h e

r ea son a ble in fer en ces dr a wn fr om t h ose a llega t ion s, a n d t h en det er m in e if

t h e cla im is pla u sible.

Th e pla u sibilit y r equ ir em en t “sim ply ca lls for

en ou gh fa ct t o r a ise a r ea son a ble expect a t ion t h a t discover y will r evea l

eviden ce” of illega l con du ct . Twom bly, 550 U.S. a t 556. Th e “m a ke-or -br ea k

st a n da r d” is t h a t t h ose a llega t ion s a n d in fer en ces, “t a ken a s t r u e, m u st st a t e

a pla u sible, n ot a m er ely con ceiva ble, ca se for r elief.” Sepu lveda -Villa r in i v.

Dep’t of E du c. of P .R., 628 F .3d 25, 29 (1st Cir . 2010).

I I I . AN AL YS I S

A. N e g lig e n c e C la im

P la in t iffs do n ot con t en d t h a t ITS wa s dir ect ly in volved in design in g,

m a n u fa ct u r in g, dist r ibu t in g, or sellin g t h e pr essu r e cook er . In st ea d, t h eir

cla im s a ga in st ITS a r ise fr om it s a lleged r ole in in spect in g, t est in g, a n d

cer t ifyin g t h e pr essu r e cooker . Beca u se pla in t iffs a r gu e t h a t ITS is lia ble in

4 n egligen ce for ser vices it per for m ed for t h e ot h er defen da n t s, ITS’s du t y of

ca r e t o t h e pla in t iffs is gover n ed by § 324A of t h e Secon d Rest a t em en t of

Tor t s, wh ich pr ovides t h a t :

On e wh o u n der t a kes, gr a t u it ou sly or for con sider a t ion , t o r en der ser vices t o a n ot h er wh ich h e sh ou ld r ecogn ize a s n ecessa r y for t h e pr ot ect ion of a t h ir d per son or h is t h in gs, is su bject t o lia bilit y t o t h e t h ir d per son for ph ysica l h a r m r esu lt in g fr om h is fa ilu r e t o exer cise r ea son a ble ca r e t o pr ot ect h is u n der t a kin g, if

(a ) h is fa ilu r e t o exer cise r ea son a ble ca r e in cr ea ses t h e r isk of su ch h a r m , or

(b) h e h a s u n der t a ken t o per for m a du t y owed by t h e ot h er t o a t h ir d per son , or

(c) t h e h a r m is su ffer ed beca u se of r elia n ce of t h e ot h er or t h e t h ir d per son u pon t h e u n der t a kin g.

Rest a t em en t (Secon d) of Tor t s § 324A (Am . L. In st . 1965); see Bloom v.

Ca sella Con st r ., In c., 172 N.H . 625, 630-31 (2019) (a pplyin g § 324A t o

n egligen ce cla im ); see a lso Am . L. P r od. Lia b. 3d § 5:38 (“Lia bilit y for

n egligen t ly in spect in g, t est in g a n d a ppr ovin g t h e design of a pr odu ct m a y be

im posed u n der t h e Rest a t em en t Secon d, Tor t s § 324A.”).

ITS a t t a cks t h e n egligen ce cla im wit h t wo a r gu m en t s. It fir st fa u lt s t h e

pla in t iffs for t h eir a lleged fa ilu r e t o plea d t h a t ITS’s con t r a ct wit h t h e ot h er

defen da n t s r equ ir ed it t o t est , in spect , cer t ify, or a ccr edit t h e pr essu r e cooker

u n der in du st r y st a n da r ds. Th is a r gu m en t is obviou sly a n on st a r t er beca u se

pla in t iffs’ t h ir d a m en ded com pla in t a sser t s t h a t ITS con t r a ct ed wit h ot h er

5 defen da n t s “for t h e t est in g, in spect ion , a n d/or cer t ifica t ion /a ccr edit a t ion ” of

t h e pr essu r e cooker . Doc. 73 a t 8. Th is gen er a l a llega t ion is su fficien t t o st a t e

a pla u sible cla im t h a t ITS con t r a ct ed wit h ot h er defen da n t s t o per for m

ser vices t h a t it sh ou ld h a ve kn own wer e n ecessa r y t o pr ot ect t h ir d-pa r t y

u ser s of t h e pr essu r e cooker .

ITS’s secon d a r gu m en t con cer n s t h e qu est ion of wh ich in du st r y sa fet y

st a n da r d a pplies t o t h e t ype of pr essu r e cooker a t issu e in t h is ca se. P la in t iffs

a sser t t h e pr essu r e cooker is su bject t o UL 136, a pr odu ct sa fet y st a n da r d for

cer t a in t ypes of pr essu r e cook er s t h a t wa s developed by UL (for m er ly

Un der wr it er s La bor a t or ies) a n d en dor sed by t h e Am er ica n Na t ion a l

St a n da r ds In st it u t e. Accor din gly, pla in t iffs ba se t h eir n egligen ce cla im in

pa r t on t h eir con t en t ion t h a t ITS wa s n egligen t for fa ilin g t o t est t h e pr essu r e

cooker for com plia n ce wit h U L 136. ITS a r gu es t h a t t h e n egligen ce cla im

m u st be dism issed beca u se U L 136 does n ot a pply t o it s pr essu r e cook er .

In st ea d, it a r gu es t h a t t h e pr essu r e cook er is su bject on ly t o UL 1026, a

differ en t st a n da r d t h a t cover s elect r ic h ou seh old cookin g a n d food ser vin g

a pplia n ces wit h ou t specifica lly r efer en cin g pr essu r e cooker s. Th is a r gu m en t

fa ils, h owever , beca u se wh et h er UL 136 or a n y ot h er in du st r y st a n da r d

a pplies t o t h e pr essu r e cooker a t issu e h er e pr esen t s a qu est ion of fa ct t h a t

ca n n ot be det er m in ed on a m ot ion t o dism iss.

6 F or t h ese r ea son s, ITS’s m ot ion t o dism iss t h e n egligen ce cla im is

den ied.

B. C o n s u m e r P r o t e c t io n Ac t C la im

Th e CP A pr oh ibit s a n y “u n fa ir m et h od of com pet it ion or [. . .] decept ive

a ct or pr a ct ice in t h e con du ct of a n y t r a de or com m er ce wit h in t h e st a t e.”

N.H . Rev. St a t . An n . § 358-A:2. Th e st a t u t e pr ovides a n on exh a u st ive list of

u n fa ir or decept ive a ct s a n d pr a ct ices. Id. P la in t iffs ba se t h eir CP A cla im on

su bsect ion VII, wh ich pr oh ibit s a per son fr om decept ively “[r ]epr esen t in g t h a t

goods or ser vices a r e of a pa r t icu la r st a n da r d, qu a lit y, or gr a de, or t h a t goods

a r e of a pa r t icu la r st yle or m odel, if t h ey a r e of a n ot h er [.]” Id. § 358-A:2 VII.

Th e on ly a llegedly fa lse or decept ive r epr esen t a t ion s t h a t pla in t iffs cit e

in su ppor t of t h eir CP A cla im con cer n u n specified per for m a n ce a n d sa fet y

fea t u r es of t h e pr odu ct t h a t wer e deliver ed wit h t h e pr essu r e cooker wh en it

wa s sold. Doc. 73 a t 29, 32-33. Beca u se t h e com pla in t does n ot t ie ITS t o a n y

of t h ese a lleged r epr esen t a t ion s, pla in t iffs h a ve fa iled t o st a t e a via ble CP A

cla im a ga in st ITS.

7 I V. C O N C L U S I O N

F or t h e r ea son s expla in ed a bove, I gr a n t t h e m ot ion t o dism iss, Doc. 77,

a s t o Cou n t s I, III, IV, a n d V a ga in st ITS. H owever , I den y t h e m ot ion t o

dism iss a s t o Cou n t II.

SO ORDE RE D.

/s/ P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict J u dge

Apr il 14, 2025

cc: Cou n sel of Recor d

8