Moss v. Walgreen Co.
765 F. Supp. 2d 1363
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Moss filed a putative class FDUTPA and express warranty action against Walgreen Co. in SD Florida (Case No. 10-62089-CIV).
- Plaintiff challenges Full Action mouth rinse labeling/advertising claims as deceptive and seeks redress for a price premium.
- Complaint alleges Full Action claims to fight plaque above the gum line lack a reasonable basis.
- FDA issued a letter stating Full Action could be a drug if used to fight plaque and misbranding concerns; claims rely on that letter.
- Walgreen moved to dismiss on FDCA preemption and failure to state FDUTPA and warranty claims; motion filed January 3, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCA preemption of state claims | Moss relies on FDA letter; not pleading private FDCA claim. | FDCA preempts state unfair competition claims tied to FDCA violations. | FDCA does not preempt Moss's FDUTPA/breach claims based on antiplaque claims. |
| FDUTPA sufficiency | Allegations show deceptive practice likely to mislead; damages via price premium. | Plaintiff must prove reliance; lacks actual reliance on specific claims. | FDUTPA claim survives; reliance not required to plead a deceptive practice under Florida law. |
| Breach of express warranty viability | Labeling/advertising constitutes express warranties; breach by failure to provide benefits. | Claims do not meet warranty formation criteria or breach. | Plaintiff states a plausible breach-of-express-warranty claim. |
| Notice requirement for warranty claim | Plaintiff alleges notice of breach. | Not elaborated; standard requirement. | Notice allegation is adequate to plead breach of express warranty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So.2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (FDUTPA elements interpreted; reliance not required; consumer deception standard)
- Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., 758 So.2d 699 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (Deceptive trade practices can be inferred from reasonable consumer reliance)
- Wyndham Int'l, Inc., 869 So.2d 592 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (Deceptive/unfair trade practices, reliance can be reasonable, not strictly actual)
- Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So.2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (Causation element vs. reliance in FDUTPA damages context)
- Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (12(b)(6) standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (Plausibility screening; factual allegations must be plausible)