706 F.Supp.3d 489
D.N.J.2023Background
- Plaintiff Calabria Ristorante, Inc. filed a class action alleging it and others were sold frozen calamari by defendants (Performance Food, Town Dock, Ruggiero) in packages mislabeling net weight due to glaze/added water.
- Plaintiff relied on defendants’ representation of net weight, but government audits in 2014 revealed weights below what was declared on packaging.
- Calabria continued to purchase from defendants, later filing additional complaints with regulatory agencies, but alleged ongoing misrepresentation and financial loss.
- Plaintiff asserted breach of contract, various torts, statutory consumer protection, and warranty claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (various grounds), asserting some claims barred by economic loss doctrine, preemption, lack of standing, and statute of limitations.
- Court heard motions under Rule 12(b)(6) without oral argument and issued an opinion dismissing most claims except a narrow Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) claim against Performance Food.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic Loss Doctrine bars tort claims | Alternative pleading allows negligence/negligent misrepresentation; facts could support independent duty | Economic loss doctrine bars tort claims since damages arise from contractual relationship | Negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Federal preemption by Food Act/Labeling Act | State law labeling/truth-in-packaging claims are consistent with federal law; statutes not preempted | Claims conflict with federal requirements, so are preempted | State law claims are not preempted; they mirror federal requirements |
| Statute of limitations bars claims | Some claims are tolled by alleged continuing conduct; conflicts continue post-2014 | Claim accrual began at time of 2014 audit, all claims untimely | All claims except CFA claim against Performance Food are time-barred; CFA claim survives due to continuing conduct (supported by 2017 invoice) |
| CFA claim sufficiency | Alleged misrepresentation in net weight caused ascertainable loss; CFA applies to business plaintiffs using products in operations | CFA does not apply to wholesale/commercial buyers; no consumer standing | CFA claim is sufficiently pled and survives (as to Performance Food only); Plaintiff is a consumer under the CFA |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (elements of Article III standing)
- Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (framework for federal preemption analysis in Third Circuit)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604 (economic loss doctrine bars tort claims where only contractual rights are implicated)
- Sun Chem. Corp. v. Fike Corp., 981 F.3d 231 (elements of a New Jersey CFA claim)
- Francis E. Parker Mem’l Home, Inc. v. Georgia-Pac. LLC, 945 F. Supp. 2d 543 (sufficiency of CFA pleadings and private right of action)