Candice Watkins v. DineEquity Inc
591 F. App'x 132
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Candice Watkins, a New Jersey patron, sued DineEquity (Applebee’s & IHOP) in a putative class action alleging menus listed beverages without prices.
- Original state-court suit alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA); plaintiff later dropped the CFA claim and pursued TCCWNA in federal court.
- District Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint (without prejudice) and later dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, holding TCCWNA covers written provisions included in a covered writing but does not reach pure omissions (i.e., failure to list prices).
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing omission of beverage prices violates the CFA and thus the menus “include” a provision violating consumers’ rights under TCCWNA.
- Majority affirmed, reasoning TCCWNA’s phrase “which includes any provision” contemplates inclusion of illegal provisions, not mere omissions; cited Bosland and Dugan as distinguishable.
- Dissent would have allowed a TCCWNA claim based on an omission that violates the CFA, arguing New Jersey law treats omissions as actionable under the CFA and TCCWNA’s language does not exclude omissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of beverage prices on menus can ground TCCWNA liability | Watkins: menus omit prices in violation of the CFA; that omission is a provision violating consumer rights and triggers TCCWNA | DineEquity: TCCWNA targets included provisions in writings; mere omissions are not covered | Majority: No — TCCWNA reaches illegal included provisions, not pure omissions; claim dismissed |
| Whether a restaurant menu is a "covered writing" under TCCWNA | Watkins: menu is a covered writing (offer/notice) | DineEquity: does not dispute menu status | Court: Yes — menu qualifies as a covered writing |
| Whether Bosland and Dugan support treating omissions as TCCWNA predicate violations | Watkins: relies on those decisions to show omissions can trigger liability | DineEquity: distinguishes those cases as involving affirmative misrepresentations or deceptive price switches | Court: Distinguishes both; Bosland involved an included false provision; Dugan involved a deceptive "secret switch" rather than a simple omission |
| Whether denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion | Watkins: sought reconsideration citing Dugan paragraph | DineEquity: trial court properly considered Dugan earlier | Court: No abuse — motion raised no new law or facts and did not correct clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballentine v. United States, 486 F.3d 806 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard principles)
- Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 207 N.J. 428 (N.J. 2011) (legislative purpose of TCCWNA to prevent deceptive contract terms)
- Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (N.J. 2009) (covered writing containing an included illegal provision can violate TCCWNA)
- Shelton v. Restaurant.com, 214 N.J. 419 (N.J. 2013) (TCCWNA enforces rights created by other laws)
- Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 173 N.J. 233 (N.J. 2002) (CFA remedies and standing principles)