Parrott v. Family Dollar, Inc.
1:17-cv-00222
N.D. Ill.Apr 16, 2020Background
- Plaintiff purchased a Family Dollar aloe product labeled with express statements (e.g., “Made with 100% Pure Aloe,” “made from fresh Aloe Vera leaves,” and that it “helps to soothe and cool sunburned or dry skin”).
- Plaintiff sued asserting three counts: breach of express warranty (Count I), breach of implied warranty (Count II), and a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ICFA) (Count III).
- The district court had earlier dismissed Counts I and II with prejudice (for failure to allege notice or defendant knowledge) and dismissed Count III without prejudice as duplicative of the warranty claim, but granted leave to amend the ICFA claim.
- Plaintiff filed a third-amended complaint repleading all three counts (noting she repleads I and II to preserve them on appeal), and added allegations that the product lacked discernible aloe, was of inferior quality, and did not provide aloe’s benefits.
- Defendant moved to dismiss Count III again, arguing the ICFA allegations merely restate the dismissed express-warranty claim and thus are not actionable under Illinois law.
- The court struck Counts I and II from the third-amended complaint as improper to replead after prior dismissal with prejudice, and granted the motion to dismiss Count III for failure to plead deceptive conduct distinct from a breach of contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICFA claim can proceed when based on alleged omissions that mirror an express-warranty breach | Plaintiff: omission that product lacks aloe, is of inferior quality, and therefore lacks aloe’s benefits states an ICFA claim separate from contract breach | Family Dollar: ICFA cannot be used to recast a breach of express warranty; allegations merely restate the warranty claim | Dismissed — ICFA claim fails because allegations merely restate breach of express warranty and do not allege deceptive conduct independent of the contract breach |
| Whether alleging product is of "inferior quality" (lack of discernible aloe) constitutes actionable omission under ICFA | Plaintiff: nondisclosure that product is of inferior quality is deceptive and actionable | Family Dollar: market differences in quality are not fraud; Avery bars treating inferior quality alone as ICFA fraud | Dismissed — failure to disclose inferior quality is not an ICFA violation absent deceptive conduct beyond ordinary quality differences |
| Whether relitigating counts previously dismissed with prejudice is proper in an amended complaint | Plaintiff: repleads Counts I and II to preserve them for appeal | Family Dollar: repleading claims dismissed with prejudice is unnecessary/improper | Stricken — court removed Counts I and II from the third-amended complaint as improper repleading after final dismissal |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded facts showing defendant knew of a defect or engaged in concealment distinct from contractual promises | Plaintiff: alleged concealment/omission about benefits and quality of aloe | Family Dollar: allegations are conclusory and only rephrase label promises | Dismissed — pleading is conclusory and indistinguishable from the express-warranty allegations, so ICFA claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. National Health Care Servs. of Peoria, 934 F.2d 95 (7th Cir.) (dismissed claims need not be included in an amended complaint)
- Bastian v. Petren Resources Corp., 892 F.2d 680 (7th Cir.) (final judgment incorporates prior rulings; no need to replead dismissed claims)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005) (breach of contractual promise alone is not actionable under the ICFA; inferior product quality is not per se consumer-fraud)
- Greenberger v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 631 F.3d 392 (7th Cir.) (ICFA claim cannot be a restatement of a breach of contract; omission allegations duplicative of contract breach are insufficient)