Rose v. Mattress Firm, Inc.

JIMI ROSE, Plaintiff, v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. and JOHN ECK, Defendants.

No. 5:20-cv-06334

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

February 23, 2021

OPINION

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and to Strike Certain Language from the Complaint, ECF No. 6—GRANTED

Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Jimi Rose commenced this action in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas against Mattress Firm, Inc., and its CEO, John Eck. Rose's claims, while difficult to discern, stem from alleged defects in a mattress that was purchased from Mattress Firm, Inc. for him as a gift by friends. Defendants removed the case to this Court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, and now move to dismiss the Complaint. They also move to strike certain passages from the Complaint as immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss, as well as their motion to strike, are granted. Rose's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint¹

The Court takes the following allegations verbatim from Rose's Complaint. The Court declines to credit by way of reproduction those portions of Rose's Complaint that contain impertinent, scandalous, and patently inappropriate assertions directed at Defendants—of which there are several. With those omissions, Rose avers as follows:

1. On or around the 11th day of July, 2020 Plaintiff's friends purchased a mattress and a base from Mattress Firm as a gift to the Plaintiff.

2. Several days later, the delivery men delivered what was supposed to be an extra firm mattress and an electronic base. When the gentlemen who brought the mattress to the Plaintiff's home looked like they were very unclean people.

3. Plaintiff does not know the exact date the mattress was delivered but, approximately a week and a half after the Plaintiff got the mattress and base, the electric plug which was plugged into the wall which controlled the base and vibrator started to smoke.

4. It was at this time the Plaintiff contacted his electrician because the prongs from the cord has burned into the outlet.

5. Plaintiff contacted Kim who sold the Plaintiff's friends the mattress for the Plaintiff as a gift. Kim informed the Plaintiff that she would talk to her boss about the base and that the boss would know what to do. Approximately a week later, Plaintiff received a call from Kim's boss who told the Plaintiff she would refund the Plaintiff's money for the base which she did.

6. The Plaintiff reached out personally to Defendant Eck and asked him to refund all the money for the Mattress because, the Mattress had bugs in it and the Plaintiff had to remove the Mattress from the bedroom to the garage so that the Mattress could be fumigated.

7. After 2 weeks of the mattress sitting in the garage and being sprayed 2 or 3 times a week, the Plaintiff then moved the mattress back to his bedroom. It was at this time the Plaintiff noticed that the mattress was a defective mattress because, the mattress did not lay flat; it was always a dip in the middle of the mattress which brought excruciating pain to the Plaintiff's back.

8. There was always a dip in the bed that never went away. Plaintiff will attach a picture of how the mattress is designed. One thing is a fact the mattress is not an extra firm mattress.

9. All the Plaintiff wanted to do is get his money back and go to a legitimate mattress place and get himself a good mattress and get what he paid for. He asked the President, Defendant Eck, to return his funds. Since the Defendant refused to return the Plaintiff's funds, let us bring the mattress to a Jury and let the Jury see the mattress and how defective it is.

10. This matter should have been settled over a month ago . . . .

11. The mattress does not lie and, the mattress is not fit for human use. Plaintiff wants the Court and the Jury to see that the mattress has a bunch of ripples and, no human being should be forced to lay on a mattress that causes severe injury to the back.

12. Defendants could have resolved this matter by just giving Plaintiff his money back. Now, the Plaintiff wants double his money back for all the aggravation that Defendants put the Plaintiff through in the name of greed.

* * *

14. If Defendants do not want to pay the Plaintiff for his injuries and suffering then this matter must be set for Trial so that a Jury can see the deliberate, willful and intentional negligence of the Defendants.

15. Plaintiff cannot sleep on the bed because, it causes Plaintiff's back to be sore and there are too many lumps on the mattress. The mattress is causing Plaintiff severe injury. Whereas, the Plaintiff, when he gets out of bed, he can barely walk because, the mattress acts like it has a mind of its own on how to destroy those who lay on it.

16. The Plaintiff asked the CEO to resolve this matter, they gave the Plaintiff $600 or $700 for the base but, fell short when it came time to refunding the money for the mattress. The CEO was given every opportunity to correct his illegal business practices.

* * *

18. Plaintiff will extend this Complaint in the event the CEO does not want to give him all his money back.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter Judgment for the Plaintiff and against Defendant John Eck . . . in excess of $100,000 nominal and $100,000 punitive damages for Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices and against Defendant Mattress Firm in excess of $100,000 nominal and $100,000 punitive damages for Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.

Rose's Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1.

Rose does not state what causes of action he is attempting to pursue based on these allegations.

B. Procedural Background

Rose commenced this action in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas on or about November 6, 2020. See ECF No. 1. Defendants removed the case to this Court on December 16, 2020. See id. They filed their motion to dismiss shortly thereafter on December 23, 2020. See ECF No. 6.

A letter from Rose to the Court was docketed on January 11, 2021, in which Rose expresses his desire to settle this case and the efforts he has made towards that purpose. See ECF No. 8. Rose next filed a motion, docketed on January 22, 2021, to strike Defendants' motion to dismiss for their alleged failure to conference the matter with him prior to filing the motion. See ECF No. 11. On January 26, 2021, the Court issued an Order directing Rose to respond to the pending motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 10. That same day, two filings of Rose's were docketed: a "letter" from Rose apparently directed to opposing counsel, expressing Rose's displeasure with Defendants' failure to settle this case on terms Rose finds appropriate and stating what he believes to be fair settlement terms, see ECF No. 9; as well as Rose's response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 12. The next day, January 27, 2021, the Courtissued an Order formally denying Rose's motion to strike Defendants' motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 13.

Another letter from Rose to opposing counsel regarding settlement was docketed on February 8, 2021. See ECF No. 15. Also docketed on February 8, 2021, was a filing by Rose titled "Motion to Clarify the Record with Undisputed Facts / Constitutional Notation Pursuant to the 1^st Amendment." See ECF No. 16. This "motion"—which contained seemingly random legal citations, reassertions of Rose's allegations against Defendants, references to settlement efforts, and ad hominem attacks—was denied in an Order issued on February 10, 2021. See ECF No. 17.

On February 16, 2021, an additional motion by Rose was docketed, this one titled "Motion to Withdraw Any Frivolous Argument or Contentions that this Honorable Court has Already Formed an Opinion About. This Motion Supersedes any and all Motions Previously Filed by the Plaintiff in these Pleadings." See ECF No. 18. On February 22, 2021, another motion by Rose was docketed, this one titled "Motion to be Treated like a Human Being And Motion to Forgive Plaintiff for Being an American with a Handicap." See ECF No. 19. These two most recent "motions"—the purposes of which are not at all clear—remain pending.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS & APPLICABLE LAW

Defendants move for dismissal on three grounds: (1) Rose's failure to comply with the relevant rules regarding sufficient service of process; (2) an absence of personal jurisdiction over Defendant John Eck; and (3) Rose's failure to state any viable claim upon which relief can be granted. Because, as explained below, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate on grounds(2) and (3), the Court does not address Defendants' arguments regarding service of process, as that issue is moot.²

A. Legal Standard: Motions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)

A motion to dismiss a pleading for lack of personal jurisdiction is properly raised under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). A Rule 12(b)(2) motion "is inherently a matter which requires resolution of factual issues outside the pleadings, i.e. whether in personam jurisdiction actually lies." Patterson by Patterson v. F.B.I., 893 F.2d 595, 603 (3d Cir. 1990). Where a defendant challenges the existence of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists. Aetna Inc. v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 541, 550 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (citing O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007)); Action Mfg. Co. v. Simon Wrecking Co., 375 F. Supp. 2d 411, 418 (E.D. Pa. 2005). "The plaintiff meets this burden by 'establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state to support jurisdiction.'" Hepp v. Facebook, Inc., No. CV 19-4034, 2020 WL 4437036, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2020) (quoting Provident Nat'l Bank v. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 819 F.2d 434, 437 (3d Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may not "rely on the bare...