338 F. Supp. 3d 741
E.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Al Haj (Illinois) and Woodhams (Michigan) bought 8-oz bottles of "Maximum Strength" Robitussin and allege they paid more because they reasonably expected "Maximum Strength" to mean a higher concentration of active ingredients than "Regular Strength."
- Per the complaint: per 10 ml, Regular = 20 mg DXM HBr + 200 mg guaifenesin; Maximum = 10 mg DXM HBr + 200 mg guaifenesin. The recommended dose for Maximum is 20 ml (double Regular's 10 ml), so one recommended dose of Maximum equals one dose of Regular for DXM HBr by total mg.
- Maximum Strength bottles contain fewer doses per bottle than Regular but sell for higher retail prices, allegedly yielding higher per-mg price for consumers.
- Claims: (1) NJ Consumer Fraud Act; (2) alternative multi-state consumer protection claims (including Illinois ICFA); (3) unjust enrichment — each asserted individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class.
- Procedural: Pfizer moved to dismiss Woodhams for lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)), to dismiss Al Haj (Rule 12(b)(6)), and to strike class allegations (Rule 12(f)). Court granted dismissal of Woodhams for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the other motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over nonresident Woodhams | Woodhams urged both general and specific jurisdiction in Illinois, pointing to Pfizer's significant sales and prior litigation presence in Illinois | Pfizer: not "at home" in Illinois; Woodhams's purchase and injury occurred in Michigan, so no nexus to Illinois | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction: neither general nor specific jurisdiction exists (Bristol-Myers principle controls) |
| Choice of law for Al Haj's individual claims | Al Haj: New Jersey law should govern because Pfizer's representations emanated from NJ | Pfizer: Illinois law should govern | Illinois law governs Al Haj's individual claims under Restatement (Second) contacts analysis |
| Sufficiency of ICFA deceptive-practice claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Al Haj: "Maximum Strength" reasonably read to promise greater concentration per unit volume; he relied and paid more | Pfizer: label is not deceptive because one recommended dose of Maximum contains more active ingredients; ingredient/dosage info is disclosed | ICFA claim survives plausibility review; reasonable consumer could expect higher concentration per unit, proximate cause and deception adequately pleaded |
| Class allegations | Al Haj seeks nationwide class; argues common question whether labeling is deceptive | Pfizer: multistate law variations preclude certification; move to strike now | Motion to strike denied without prejudice; class-certification issues better resolved on a developed Rule 23 record |
Key Cases Cited
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction on a Rule 12(b)(2) motion)
- Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (personal-jurisdiction evidentiary standard on pretrial motion)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires corporation be "at home" in forum)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (sales volume in a state does not alone establish general jurisdiction)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific jurisdiction requires connection between forum and the plaintiff's claims)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific-jurisdiction inquiry focuses on relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Pella Corp. v. Saltzman, 606 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2010) (multistate consumer-fraud classes may be appropriate where central questions are common)