Binder v. Sycamore Partners Management, L.P.
1:23-cv-03939
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 11, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Binder, Waldner, and Calcagno) filed a putative class action against Premium Brands Opco LLC, operator of Ann Taylor Factory Store and LOFT Outlet stores, alleging deceptive pricing practices.
- Plaintiffs allege they bought items in NY, NJ, and CA believing they were getting substantial markdowns due to false “original” or “reference” prices that were never real.
- Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under New York, New Jersey, and California consumer protection laws, alleging both overpayment and being deprived of a true bargain.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds of lack of standing for injunctive relief and failure to state a substantive claim under state laws.
- The case is at the motion to dismiss stage, with the court assessing both standing and sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Injunctive Relief | Plaintiffs claim risk of future harm and seek to enjoin deceptive pricing | Plaintiffs know of deception and can't be misled again, so no standing | Court: Plaintiffs lack standing for injunctive relief (no future injury alleged) |
| New York Law Claims (GBL §§ 349, 350) | Plaintiffs claim price premium injury: overpayment due to false discounts | No objective overpayment alleged; only subjective disappointment | Dismissed: Plaintiffs failed to plead objective price premium or actual injury |
| New Jersey Law Claims (NJCFA/TCCWNA) | Plaintiffs allege ascertainable loss via deprived bargain/overpayment | Supreme Court of NJ (Robey) requires out-of-pocket or benefit-of-bargain loss | Dismissed: No ascertainable loss; Robey directly forecloses claim |
| California Law Claims (UCL, FAL, CLRA) | Allegations satisfy Rule 9(b): specific, particular details of deception | Claimed lack of particularity; pre-suit investigation insufficient | Denied: Plaintiffs’ pleadings are sufficiently particularized to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. 1999) (rejects injury theory based solely on deception without actual loss)
- Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2015) (actual injury required; price premium theory recognized under NY law)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (standing required for each form of relief in class actions)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (standing separately required for each form of relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: facial plausibility required)