Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
January 24, 2022, Decided; January 24, 2022, Filed
Case No. 21-cv-525-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Defendant Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated ("Pepperidge Farm"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
The following facts are taken from plaintiff Deborah Floyd's ("Floyd") complaint (Doc. 1) and are accepted as true for purposes of Pepperidge Farm's motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751-52 (7th Cir. 2011).
Floyd resides in Maryville, Illinois (¶ 36). Pepperidge Farms is the manufacturer, distributer, marketer, labeler and seller of Golden Butter [Crackers] ("crackers") (¶ 1). Floyd reproduced in her complaint the following copy of the cracker box:
Floyd also reproduced the following ingredient list of the crackers in her complaint:
Butter [*2] is second on the ingredient list, behind enriched wheat flour, but the claims are concerned with the presence of the third ingredient — vegetable oils.
Floyd purchased the crackers on at least one occasion at Schnucks, 2222 Troy Road, Edwardsville, Illinois during 2019 and 2020 because "she wanted to consume a cracker which contained more butter than it did" and "did not contain butter substitutes where butter could be used" (¶¶ 41, 42). Floyd claims that the packaging of the crackers was misleading because "even though the [crackers] contain butter, it contains a non-de minimis amount of butter substitutes — vegetable oils" (¶ 10).
Floyd contends that the value of the crackers was less because they contained vegetable oils and that Pepperidge Farms was able to sell the crackers at a higher price premium due to the "misleading representations and omissions" (¶¶ 28, 31). Floyd "would not have paid as much absent [Pepperidge Farm's] false and misleading statements and omissions" (¶43).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12610 *; __ F.Supp.3d __; 2022 WL 203071
DEBORAH FLOYD, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED, Defendant.
Prior History: Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216644, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2021)
crackers, butter, deceptive, warranty, consumers, Golden, label, injunctive relief, misleading, express warranty, vegetable oil, motion to dismiss, merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, ingredient, allegations, unjust enrichment, implied warranty, practices, claim for breach, deceptive act, advertised, damages, golden-hued, substitutes, deceived, omission, asserts, terms
Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Antitrust & Trade Law, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, State Regulation, Scope, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Breach, Breach of Warranty, Commercial Law (UCC), Contract Provisions, Warranties, Express Warranties, Torts, Products Liability, Theories of Liability, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Types of Contracts, Implied Warranty of Fitness, Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Sales of Goods, Merchantability, Governments, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Fraud & Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Elements, Defenses, Remedies, Compensatory Damages, Types of Losses, Economic Losses, Heightened Pleading Requirements, Fraud Claims, Mistake, Contracts Law, Remedies, Equitable Relief, Quantum Meruit, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Injunctions, Grounds for Injunctions, Irreparable Harm, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Constitutionality of Legislation, Standing