167 F. Supp. 3d 524
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiffs John and Bassolino sue Whole Foods NYC for overcharging via mislabeled pre-packaged foods following a June 24, 2015 DCA press release.
- DCA’s investigation allegedly found systemic overcharging for pre-packaged foods; the press release summarized mislabeling and deviations from weight standards.
- CAC alleges GBL §§349, 350 and unjust enrichment, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- A December 23, 2015 settlement between DCA and Whole Foods terminated the investigation with monetary payment and labeling/pricing policy reforms; Whole Foods denies wrongdoing.
- The court consolidated the actions, removed to federal court under CAFA, and ultimately dismissed the CAC for lack of standing (and thus for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction), with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue. | John and Bassolino allege injury from overweighted products, based on the DCA press release. | Whole Foods contends plaintiffs lack personal, concrete injury; no specific overcharged transaction pled. | Plaintiffs lack standing; no particularized injury-in-fact pled. |
| Whether the CAC fails to state a claim under 12(b)(6) if standing is lacking. | CAC asserts mislabeling caused overcharges under GBL §§349, 350 and unjust enrichment. | Without standing, the CAC cannot plead an injury; independent 12(b)(6) failure follows. | CAC fails to plead injury-in-fact, thus fails Rule 12(b)(6) as well. |
| Whether leave to replead should be granted. | Potential amendment could cure pleading deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile given lack of personal overcharge evidence. | Leave to replead denied; amendment would be futile; dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether injunctive relief is proper given standing failure. | Injunctive relief sought to stop deceptive labeling. | Standing fails for injunctive relief as well. | Injunctive relief dismissed with the same standing rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amidax Trading Group v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140 (2d Cir.2011) (standing must be plausible; injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 747 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir.2014) (injury-in-fact must be actual and not purely speculative in consumer-product context)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (injury must be actual or imminent, not speculative)