198 F. Supp. 3d 1332
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Deere Construction, LLC sued Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC and Cemex, Inc., alleging they charged uniform "fuel surcharge" and "environmental charge" fees that were deceptive and not tied to actual fuel or environmental costs.
- Deere paid multiple invoices containing those fees and asserts the fees are profit-enhancers disguised as pass-through or cost-based charges.
- Deere brought (1) FDUTPA claims (money damages and injunctive relief) against both Defendants and (2) breach of contract against Cemex Construction for charging fees inconsistent with the contract (which referenced EIA-based fuel calculations and did not disclose the environmental charge).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the fee labels are not deceptive, Deere failed to plead reasonable reliance, lacks standing, the contract bars the breach claim, the voluntary payment doctrine applies, and pleading deficiencies under Rules 8 and 9.
- The Court accepted Deere’s amended allegations as true and denied the motion to dismiss, finding Deere plausibly alleged deceptive/unfair practices under FDUTPA, standing, and a viable breach claim; affirmative defenses like voluntary payment are factual and not resolved on a 12(b)(6) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether labels "fuel surcharge" and "environmental charge" are deceptive under FDUTPA | Terms imply charges tied to fuel/environment costs; Defendants kept or used them as profit, so reasonable consumers were misled | Terms were disclosed in contracts/invoices; labels alone are not deceptive; no specific misrepresentations about calculation | Court: labels can be deceptive when they imply pass-through or cost-related charges but in fact are not tied to such costs; FDUTPA claim survives |
| Whether Deere pleaded reasonable reliance/causation and Article III standing | Reliance shown because Deere paid fees it believed served stated purposes; injury is payment of fees; relief will redress injury | Argued lack of causal link between representations and injury, so no standing | Court: Deere alleged concrete injury (payments), causal connection, and redressability; standing satisfied |
| Whether breach of contract claim fails because written terms control | Deere alleges contract promised EIA-based calculation and did not disclose environmental charge; defendant breached by not performing promised calculation and charging undisclosed fee | Contract contains terms permitting surcharges and describes calculation method; invoices incorporate terms; Deere cannot rely on extracontractual representations | Court: Deere plausibly alleged a material breach (no EIA-based calculation; undisclosed environmental charge); breach claim survives |
| Whether affirmative defenses / pleading rules mandate dismissal (voluntary payment; Rule 9/8) | Voluntary payment is premature affirmative defense; FDUTPA does not require Rule 9(b) particularity | Defendants claim Deere knew of fees and voluntarily paid; FDUTPA allegations are conclusory and insufficient | Court: Voluntary payment is a fact-based defense inappropriate at 12(b)(6); FDUTPA claims need not meet Rule 9(b); Rule 8 satisfied here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., 758 So.2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (labelled pass-through charges that are kept by seller can be deceptive under consumer-protection law)
- Berry v. Budget Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 497 F.Supp.2d 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (distinguishes cost-recovery fee claims where plaintiffs failed to allege pass-through deception)
- Beck v. Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1999) (elements of a breach of contract claim)