Dumont v. Reily Foods Co.
934 F.3d 35
1st Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Kathy Dumont bought New England Coffee Company's "Hazelnut Crème" ground coffee in Massachusetts and alleges she would not have purchased it had she known it contained no actual hazelnuts.
- Front label read: "freshly ground," "100% Arabica Coffee," "Hazelnut Crème," "Medium Bodied," "Rich, Nutty Flavor." Back label listed "100% Arabica Coffee Naturally and Artificially Flavored." No image of hazelnuts appeared.
- Dumont sued individually and as putative class under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 2(a) (deceptive practices) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 § 91 (misleading advertising); unjust enrichment alleged in the alternative.
- District court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) for insufficient particularity and without leave to amend. Dumont appealed; she waived challenge to the § 91 and unjust-enrichment claims, so appeal addressed only the ch. 93A claim.
- First Circuit reversed: (1) complaint satisfied Rule 9(b) particularity (who/what/where/when identified); (2) complaint plausibly alleged a deceptive practice under ch. 93A such that a factfinder could find the label had the capacity to mislead reasonable consumers; (3) claim was not impliedly preempted by the FDCA under the parties’ assumed preemption test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9(b) barred the ch. 93A claim for failure to plead fraud with particularity | Dumont alleged who (Reily/New England Coffee), what ("Hazelnut Crème" label), where (the product label/package), and when (purchase while product sold in that packaging) — sufficient under Rule 9(b) | Defendants argued complaint lacked purchase particulars (date, exact store, point-of-sale context) required by Rule 9(b) | Reversed: Pleading met Rule 9(b); the identified "who/what/where/when" was adequate and defendants showed no prejudice from lack of extra detail |
| Whether complaint stated a plausible ch. 93A deceptive-practice claim | Dumont: label could reasonably be read by some consumers to imply actual hazelnuts and thus had capacity to mislead reasonable consumers | Defendants: reasonable consumer would read "100% Arabica Coffee" and ingredient panel to mean no hazelnuts; label not deceptive as a matter of law | Reversed: At pleading stage, allegation plausible; whether reasonable consumers would be misled is a factual question for a jury |
| Whether ch. 93A claim is impliedly preempted by the FDCA | Dumont: she asserts an independent state-law deception claim (not merely enforcing federal labeling rules) and ch. 93A predates FDCA | Defendants: claim seeks to enforce federal standards (21 C.F.R. § 101.22) and thus is preempted under Buckman as interfering with FDA enforcement | Reversed as to implied preemption under the parties’ assumed test: complaint survives so long as claim is read as an independent state-law deception claim rather than an attempt to litigate FDCA violations |
| Whether dismissal without leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Dumont requested leave to amend only cursorily in opposition filings | Defendants: no proper motion for leave; district court did not abuse discretion | Court did not reinstate amended-pleading issue; reversal limited to dismissal of complaint (district court error on Rule 9(b) and plausibility) |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. ex rel. Gagne v. City of Worcester, 565 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2009) (pleading standards exclude unsupported conclusions)
- Kaufman v. CVS Caremark Corp., 836 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2016) (Rule 9(b) particularity: who/what/where/when applied to product-label claims)
- New England Data Servs., Inc. v. Becher, 829 F.2d 286 (1st Cir. 1987) (purposes of Rule 9(b): notice, prevent groundless fraud claims, protect reputation)
- Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., 813 N.E.2d 476 (Mass. 2004) (advertisement is deceptive if it has capacity to mislead reasonable consumers)
- Chervin v. Travelers Ins. Co., 858 N.E.2d 746 (Mass. 2006) (determining boundaries of what may qualify as a ch. 93A violation is a question of law)
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (U.S. 2001) (state-law fraud-on-the-FDA claims conflict with federal enforcement and can be impliedly preempted)