Mamot v. Proctor & Gamble Corp.
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-06914
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Mamot v. Proctor & Gamble Corp., Judge Swain dismissed the products-liability complaint as barred by claim preclusion.
Patricio R. Mamot’s products-liability claims against Proctor & Gamble Corp. and GlaxoSmithKline Corp. were dismissed, and he was denied permission to amend and to appeal without paying fees.
What happened
In Mamot v. Proctor & Gamble Corp., Patricio R. Mamot, representing himself, alleged that Fixodent and Poligrip dental creams poisoned him and sought unspecified damages from their makers.
The court found that Mamot had previously sued the defendants over the same events and that those earlier cases had been decided on their merits. It therefore concluded that claim preclusion barred the new claims and that amending the complaint would not fix the problem.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint, denied permission to amend, and denied Mamot the ability to appeal without paying fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mamot v. Proctor & Gamble Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06914
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 12, 2022
Background
Patricio R. Mamot, who was representing himself, brought a products-liability action against Proctor & Gamble Corp., identified as the maker of Fixodent dental cream, and GlaxoSmithKline Corp., identified as the maker of Poligrip dental cream. Mamot alleged that the products “poisoned” him and sought unspecified damages.
The court had previously allowed Mamot to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that Mamot had brought earlier actions against the defendants based on the same events. One earlier action was transferred to the Southern District of Florida and later dismissed. The opinion also states that two earlier actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were dismissed and that those prior actions were decided on their merits.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied claim preclusion, also called res judicata. This rule prevents a party from bringing claims that were already decided, or claims arising from the same events that could have been brought, in an earlier case involving the same parties or legally connected parties.
The court concluded that the requirements for claim preclusion were met: the earlier actions had resulted in decisions on the merits, involved the same opposing parties, and concerned the same transactions and occurrences described in Mamot’s complaint. The court explained that a party cannot avoid claim preclusion by presenting a different legal theory or requesting a different remedy.
Although claim preclusion is ordinarily raised by a defendant, the court stated that it could raise and apply the rule itself. The court also concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment, so it declined to give Mamot permission to amend the complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed Mamot’s complaint as barred by claim preclusion. It did not grant leave to amend. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied Mamot permission to appeal without paying fees.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.