Guerrero v. Target Corp.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125055
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Guerrero filed a purported Florida class action on March 20, 2012 alleging Target honey labeled as 'honey' lacks pollen per Florida Honey Standard.
- Plaintiff alleges pollen removal makes Target honey misleading under FDUTPA and unjust enrichment theories.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for Rule 9(b) pleading, standing, FDUTPA safe harbor, and preemption issues.
- Court analyzes standing, concluding Plaintiff adequately alleges injury-in-fact due to mislabeling and reduced value.
- Court finds FDUTPA claims need not meet Rule 9(b) but requires factual adequacy; overall pleading insufficient as pleaded.
- Court dismisses unjust enrichment with prejudice and allows amendment of FDUTPA claim and potential relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing adequacy | Guerrero has injury-in-fact from pollen-less honey. | No injury from purchase where product differs from expectation. | Plaintiff adequately alleged injury in fact. |
| FDUTPA pleading sufficiency | FDUTPA claims need not meet 9(b); allegations sufficient at this stage. | FDUTPA claim lacks particularized facts showing deception. | Complaint fails to state FDUTPA claim as pleaded; leave to amend granted. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Unjust enrichment pleaded as alternative theory. | Duplicitous since based on same conduct as FDUTPA. | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| FDUTPA safe harbor and preemption | FDUTPA safe harbor may not apply to Florida Honey Standard. | Honey labeling permitted by federal/state law triggers safe harbor/preemption. | Safe harbor and preemption not established; claims not dismissed on these grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stalley v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir.2008) (standing is jurisdictional; dismissal for lack of standing has same effect as lack of subject matter jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must contain plausible claims, not mere allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; factual content necessary to state a claim)
- Galstaldi v. Sunvest Comtys. USA LUC, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (FDUTPA does not require fraud elements; no 9(b) pleading for FDUTPA)
- Prohias v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., 958 So.2d 1054 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (FDUTPA safe harbor can apply when a practice is specifically permitted by law)
- United States v. Bornscheuer, 563 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.2009) (statutory construction; give effect to every clause and word)
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1985) (preemption framework in healthcare/health and safety contexts)