Breach of Stadium Ticket Failure to Advise of Conditions of Seating Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Pollock v. Nat'l Football League, PICS Case No. 17-1053 (Pa. Super. June 21, 2017) Strassburger, J. (17 pages).
Res judicata/collateral estoppel barred plaintiffs from litigating tort claims in state court after those claims were dismissed in federal court under the gist of the action and economic loss doctrines. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Plaintiffs appealed from the order denying their motion for leave to file a second amended complaint against defendants, the National Football League. Plaintiffs were ticketholders for Super Bowl XLV, and were among the group of ticketholders who were unable to watch the game because their ticketed seats were in temporary seating sections not approved by safety authorities in time for the game. No adequate alternative seating was offered to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that when they purchased their tickets, they were not advised by defendant that they would be seated in temporary seating that did not yet exist or that there was no guarantee that an occupancy permit would be issued for the seats by game time.
Plaintiffs complaint, filed in federal court, asserted tort claims based upon the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and asserted breach of contract claims based upon the NFL's failure to provide the seating designated on plaintiff's tickets. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs' tort claims under the economic loss and gist of the action doctrines. In response, plaintiffs abandoned their breach of contract claim and reasserted their tort claims. Defendant renewed its motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs' tort claims were still barred by the economic loss and gist of the action doctrines regardless of plaintiff's discontinuance of their breach of contract claim. The district court agreed, ruling that plaintiffs' tort claims were merely breaches of the contractual obligations created by plaintiffs' tickets. The district court also agreed that plaintiffs' claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction for falling below the amount in controversy requirement.
Plaintiffs transferred the action from federal to state court, but took no action for two years until the present motion for leave to file a second complaint to assert claims of fraudulent/negligent inducement, violation of the UTPCPL, and breach of contract. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that plaintiff's tort claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel and that their contract claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion.