Downing v. Keurig Green Mt., Inc.

Downing v. Keurig Green Mt., Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

TALWANI, D.J.

Plaintiff Matthew Downing, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, brings this case against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig"). His Complaint [#1] alleges that Keurig deceptively advertised its plastic single-serving pods as recyclable when those pods were not recyclable according to federal regulations. Pending before the court is Keurig's Motion to Dismiss [#16] based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Keurig moves in the alternative to strike Downing's nationwide-class allegations or to dismiss his claim to the extent he asserts it on behalf of anyone outside of Massachusetts. [*2]  For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED but to the extent that Downing alleges injury on behalf of a nationwide class, those claims are struck under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

I. Factual Background

As alleged in the Complaint [#1], the facts are as follows. Keurig is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Burlington, Massachusetts. Compl. P 10 [#1].

Keurig manufactures coffee machines that brew single servings of coffee and other hot beverages using Keurig's own K-Cup Pods ("Pods"). Pods are plastic containers covered in foil. Compl. PP 2, 39 [#1]. In June of 2016, Keurig released Pods that were manufactured from #5 plastic (which is recyclable) instead of #7 plastic (which is not). Id. at PP 17, 29. The decision to switch to Pods made from recyclable plastic came after a backlash to the use of nonrecyclable plastic. Id. at PP 18-22. Keurig's product design staff is based in Massachusetts. Id. at P 59. The decision to market and label Pods as recyclable was made at Keurig headquarters in Massachusetts. Id. at PP 24-26. The logo for these new Pods, designed at the same headquarters, id. at PP 58-66, featured a three-arrow recycling symbol and the catch phrase "Peel, Empty, [*3]  Recycle," although the word "Recycle" was followed by an asterisk that advised buyers to "Check Locally." Id. at P 29. The box also informed customers that they could "Have your cup and recycle it, too," although again the advertisement stated that customers should "Check locally to recycle empty cup." Id. at P 31. Those promises were significant and material to consumers, who purchased and received Pods that Keurig promised were recyclable. Id. at P 7. The advertisements have remained substantively and materially similar since June 2016. Id. at P 33.

During the period from June 2016 to the present, however, many recycling centers could not accept the Pods as a recyclable product. Id. at P 42. In an internal investigation completed prior to releasing the product, Keurig discovered that even at recycling centers which will accept the Pods only 30% of the Pods were successfully recycled. Id. at P 53. A majority of the rejected Pods were not selected for recycling based on their size, their tendency to become crushed by the recycling machines, and residue from the foil tops, filters or other contaminants. Id. at PP 6, 37- 40. Thus, Downing complains that he was tricked into buying a product [*4]  that was less valuable than the one he bargained for and that Keurig knowingly sold Pods with deceptive advertisements. Id. at PP 42, 55, 67, 89.

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