CUMMINGS v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS
1:22-cv-00141
N.D. Fla.May 15, 2023Background
- Blue Diamond sells almonds labeled "Smokehouse®" whose flavor comes from liquid smoke, not an actual smoking process.
- Plaintiff Willie Cummings bought the product, alleges he believed it was smoked, paid a price premium, and filed a putative class action.
- Causes of action: FDUTPA and other states' consumer-fraud laws, express and implied warranties, Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
- Blue Diamond moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- The court held Cummings has Article III standing to seek damages (past economic injury) but not injunctive relief (no imminent risk of future deception).
- On the merits the court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim, but granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (damages vs injunctive relief) | Cummings alleges he paid a premium and seeks damages and injunction | Blue Diamond contends lack of traceable, redressable injury for injunction | Court: standing for damages (economic injury alleged); no standing for injunctive relief (no real threat to buy again) |
| FDUTPA (deceptiveness) | "Smokehouse®" and packaging imagery would lead reasonable consumers to think almonds were actually smoked | Trademark symbol, ingredient list ("NATURAL HICKORY SMOKE FLAVOR"), and context preclude reasonable deception | Court: dismissed FDUTPA claim — label not plausibly likely to deceive a reasonable consumer |
| Warranty claims (express, implied, MMWA) | Product breached express/implied warranties; MMWA claim follows | Blue Diamond: plaintiff failed to give reasonable pre-suit notice; privity lacking for implied warranty; MMWA depends on state-law warranty | Court: express warranty dismissed for failure to give notice; implied warranty and MMWA dismissed for lack of privity or independent plausibility |
| Fraud / Negligent misrepresentation / Unjust enrichment | Cummings alleges misstatements/omissions caused reliance and conferred benefit | Blue Diamond: no actionable misrepresentation, no duty to disclose, economic-loss principles, and no direct benefit conferred | Court: dismissed fraud and negligent-misrepresentation for failure to plead a plausible misrepresentation, intent, or duty; unjust enrichment dismissed for no direct benefit to defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 48 F.4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022) (standing pleading standard at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing elements)
- Carriuolo v. General Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) (FDUTPA damages and price-premium theory)
- Debernardis v. IQ Formulations, LLC, 942 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2019) (economic injury under consumer-deception theory)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Zlotnick v. Premier Sales Group, Inc., 480 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (objective reasonable-consumer deception standard)
- Ebner v. Fresh, 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) (disclaimers/true information undercut deception claims)
- Colpitts v. Blue Diamond Growers, 527 F. Supp. 3d 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (contrasting decision finding Smokehouse label a close call)
- General Matters, Inc. v. Paramount Canning Co., 382 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (pre-suit notice as condition to seller liability for warranty)
- Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017) (unjust enrichment requires direct conferral of benefit)