Edwards v. North American Power & Gas, LLC
120 F. Supp. 3d 132
D. Conn.2015Background
- Edwards sues NAPG for allegedly unfair and deceptive electricity pricing in a deregulated market; NAPG is a middleman, not generating or distributing power.
- Edwards alleges teaser and variable rates marketed as tied to wholesale market, but prices did not track wholesale rates.
- Claims span multiple states' unfair trade practices acts (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire) plus breach of implied covenant and unjust enrichment.
- Court denies dismissal for CUTPA and breach of the covenant claims, but grants dismissal without prejudice for Maine UTPA, New Hampshire CPA, and Rhode Island UTPA, and for unjust enrichment.
- Edwards resides in Connecticut and subscribed to NAPG's variable-rate plan; potential class seeks Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine customers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to pursue non-Connecticut claims | Edwards seeks class treatment later; standing should be preserved | Edwards lacks standing for non-Connecticut statutes without personal injury in those states | Non-Connecticut standing dismissed; claims under NH, ME, RI law dismissed |
| CUTPA claim sufficiency | Pricing and marketing could be unfair/deceptive under CUTPA | Contract terms and lack of explicit link preclude CUTPA liability | CUTPA claim survives to discovery; plausibility found at this stage |
| Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Discretion exercised in bad faith, pricing not commercially reasonable | Pricing aligns with contract; no bad faith pleaded | Claim survives; plausible bad-faith theory supported by facts |
| Unjust enrichment | Alternative theory if contract invalid | Express contract defeats unjust enrichment | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed without prejudice |
| State-law choice and extraterritorial reach | Not central at this stage; Connecticut ties alleged | States' laws cannot reach without proper injury and relation | Court assesses extraterritorial reach as part of standing and CUTPA analysis; not dispositive at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading must be met)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must plead more than conclusory allegations)
- Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2012) (standing is per-claim and threshold issue)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (standing requirement for justiciability)
- Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 95 F.Supp.3d 284 (D. Conn. 2015) (CUTPA claim involves questions of fact; not dispositive at dismissal)
- Naples v. Keystone Bldg. & Dev. Corp., 295 Conn. 214, 990 A.2d 326 (Conn. 2010) (three-prong cigarette rule for unfairness in CUTPA)
- A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 216 Conn. 200, 579 A.2d 69 (Conn. 1990) (unfair practices include withholding information, unsubstantiated claims, high-pressure tactics)
- Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin, 215 Conn. 590, 577 A.2d 1009 (Conn. 1990) (deception and materiality standards under CUTPA)