323 F. Supp. 3d 1082
D. Me.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are dentists/dental practices who bought 3M's Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM restorative blocks and used them to make single-visit crowns; they allege the material has a propensity to "debond" from teeth leading to failures and repair/replacement costs.
- FDA approved Lava Ultimate for crowns in 2011; in June 2015 3M notified dentists it was removing the crown indication because crowns were "debonding at a higher-than anticipated rate," and the FDA classified the notice as a Class II recall.
- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting state-law fraud/consumer-protection claims, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim on behalf of nationwide/state classes; roughly 70 counts raised across multiple states.
- 3M moved to partially dismiss and to strike punitive-damages allegations, arguing (inter alia) that fraud-based claims fail Rule 9(b) pleading requirements, implied-warranty claims are barred by a conspicuous written disclaimer in a 10-year limited warranty, and that the MMWA does not apply because Lava Ultimate is not a "consumer product."
- The Court: (a) dismissed all fraud-based statutory and common-law fraud claims for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) (without prejudice); (b) dismissed several injunctive-only statutory claims with prejudice for lack of a plausible risk of future harm; (c) declined to dismiss implied-warranty claims at this stage (fact questions about disclaimer and privity remain); (d) denied dismissal of unjust-enrichment and certain state consumer-protection claims (e.g., Washington CPA); (e) dismissed the Magnuson-Moss claim and struck punitive-damages allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of fraud/consumer-protection pleading under Rule 9(b) | Plaintiffs allege widespread misleading marketing and reliance; exact dates/details of each communication are not required for an advertising campaign case | 3M: claims are vague, repetitive, and fail to plead "who, what, when, where, how" or representative examples required by Rule 9(b) | Court: Dismissed all fraud-based claims for lack of particularity (without prejudice); plaintiffs may amend but informal request denied |
| Claims seeking injunctive relief under statutes that only permit injunctions (e.g., MDTPA, GDTPA, CA UCL) | Injunctive relief still appropriate because 3M could reintroduce crown use or fail to correct prior misrepresentations | 3M: plaintiffs lack a plausible threat of future harm because 3M already removed crown indication and FDA oversight constrains reintroduction | Court: Dismissed those injunctive-only claims with prejudice for failure to plausibly allege likelihood of future harm |
| Breach of implied warranty: disclaimer and privity/third-party beneficiary | Plaintiffs: warranty disclaimer authenticity and dissemination are factual; plaintiffs may be third-party beneficiaries or rely on labels/ads to overcome privity | 3M: express 10-year written warranty disclaims all implied warranties conspicuously; many plaintiffs lack privity | Court: Declined to dismiss implied-warranty claims now — reserved question of disclaimer validity and privity for later (claims survive pleading stage) |
| Unjust enrichment, MMWA, and punitive damages | Plaintiffs: alternatively plead unjust enrichment; seek MMWA relief; request punitive damages | 3M: contract/warranty remedies preclude unjust enrichment; Lava Ultimate not a consumer product under MMWA; punitive damages insufficiently pled | Court: Denied dismissal of unjust-enrichment claims (pled in the alternative); dismissed MMWA claim (Lava Ultimate not a consumer product); struck punitive-damages allegations for failure to meet statutory pleading/leave requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions and conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) requires pleading the who, what, where, when, and how for fraud)
- Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) (court may consider documents embraced by the complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Dittmer Props., L.P. v. F.D.I.C., 708 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2013) (contracts or documents expressly mentioned in complaint may be considered without converting to summary judgment)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (discusses vertical privity rule for implied-warranty claims and limited exceptions)