Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc.

Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

February 28, 2018, Decided; February 28, 2018, Filed

No. 17 C 3519

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Clarisha Benson and Lorenzo Smith purchased some delightful treats at two stores owned by Defendant Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. ("Fannie May"), and were saddened to discover upon opening their boxes of Mint Meltaways and Pixies that the boxes were not brimming with delectable goodies. Rather, the boxes were filled merely two-thirds of the way to their brims, leaving Benson and Smith twenty-four-cubic-inches or more short of satisfaction. Plaintiffs now bring this putative class action alleging that the candies in question did not simply melt or fly away as their names imply, but that Fannie May never placed them in the box in the first place and did so to trick potential [*2]  consumers into believing they were receiving more candy than they really were. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1 et seq., and seeks injunctive relief (Count I) and damages (Count II). Plaintiffs also have two Illinois common-law claims for unjust enrichment (Count III) and breach of implied contract (Count IV). Fannie May moves to dismiss [11] the complaint in its entirety, arguing that Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., therefore all of their state-law claims are preempted and must be dismissed. Alternatively, Fannie May argues that Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded the elements of their ICFA claim, that they lack standing to bring claims on behalf of purchasers of products Plaintiffs did not purchase, and that they lack standing to seek injunctive relief. Because the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a violation of the FDCA, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Additionally, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the injunctive relief claim because Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that they are likely to be [*3]  injured in the future and the Court grants the motion to dismiss with respect to the products Plaintiffs did not purchase because they lack standing to bring those claims.

BACKGROUND1

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32781 *; 2018 WL 1087639

CLARISHA BENSON and LORENZO SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS BRANDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Dismissed by, Motion denied by, As moot Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207658 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 10, 2018)

CORE TERMS

slack-fill, products, boxes, package, injunctive relief, food, nonfunctional, alleged violation, motion to dismiss, regulations, candies, consumers, container, fill, lack standing, class action, allegations, deceptive practices, grant a motion, deceptive, labeling, courts, cases