Merritt v. Target Corporation
4:24-cv-01458
E.D. Mo.May 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Clayton T. Merritt bought a $30 "Room Essentials 3-Shelf Bookcase" from Target after a store employee assured him it would fit his vinyl record player and records.
- Upon assembly, Merritt found the bookcase was too shallow to fit his record player, despite packaging that displayed the bookcase's dimensions.
- Instead of returning or exchanging the item, Merritt filed suit, asserting claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and for breaches of express and implied warranties.
- Target removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court was asked to assess whether plaintiff’s reliance on verbal statements, rather than written packaging, was reasonable and whether pre-suit notice was required for the warranty claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMPA – Reasonableness of reliance on employee statement | Merritt reasonably relied on employee’s assurances about suitability for his purpose | Reasonable consumers should have checked packaging for dimensions | Plaintiff stated plausible claim; not per se unreasonable reliance |
| MMPA – Misrepresentation as unlawful act | Employee’s statements were actionable misrepresentations under MMPA | Contradictory packaging disclosures preclude liability | Employee’s misrepresentation sufficient for claim at this stage |
| Warranty – Failure to provide pre-suit notice | Not specifically addressed; did not dispute failure to notify Target | Lack of pre-suit notice bars warranty claims | Warranty claims dismissed for lack of notice |
| Damages under MMPA | Alleged bookcase was worthless for his needs | Questioned sufficiency of damages pleadings | Sufficient at pleading stage; survives motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standard for plausibility at motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaints require factual enhancement beyond mere recitals)
- State ex rel. Webster v. Areaco Inv. Co., 756 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (misrepresentations violate MMPA even if corrected elsewhere)
- Judd v. Walker, 89 S.W. 558 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905) (buyers can reasonably rely on non-obviously false seller statements)
- Duncan v. Savannah, LLC, 637 S.W.3d 633 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021) (MMPA misrepresentation claim does not require scienter)
- Ragland Mills, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 763 S.W.2d 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989) (purpose of warranty claim notice is to give seller a chance to respond)