Patricia Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations
751 F.3d 888
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Patricia Toben filed a putative class action against Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and money had and received.
- Toben’s vehicle service included a shop supply fee of 6% of labor, capped at $25, disclosed on in-store boards and the customer’s invoice.
- Discovery limited to class certification issues; Toben sought merits discovery, while Bridgestone produced information about the fee’s purpose and costs.
- Bridgestone’s disclosures stated the fee represented costs and profits and that it was used for shop supplies rather than to itemize precise materials.
- The district court granted Bridgestone summary judgment on both MMPA and money had and received claims, and Toben’s Rule 56(d) request for merits discovery was denied.
- Toben appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion on discovery and that summary judgment on the MMPA and money had and received claims was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 56(d) discovery denial adequacy | Toben contends merits discovery was essential to oppose summary judgment. | Bridgestone argues discovery was properly limited to class issues and Toben did not show essential facts exist. | Rule 56(d) denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Allowing summary judgment before class certification | Class certification discovery should proceed before summary judgment on class issues. | Courts may grant summary judgment before class certification. | Summary judgment before class certification affirmed as proper. |
| MMPA claim sufficiency | Shop supply fee is deceptive because it profits without tying to actual supplies used. | Disclosures clearly state the fee’s purpose and that it includes profit; not deceptive as a matter of law. | No unlawful practice under MMPA; summary judgment on Count I affirmed. |
| Money had and received claim viability | Fee charged and kept as unjust profit constitutes money had and received. | Disclosures show the fee is partly for profit and used for shop supplies; not unjust. | No unjust enrichment; summary judgment on Count II affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ince v. Aetna Health Mgmt., Inc., 173 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 1999) (pre-class certification summary judgment timing)
- Hechenberger v. Western Elec. Co., 742 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1984) (early authority on discovery and motions)
- Ward v. Luck, 242 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. App. 2008) (business law elements for money had and received)
- Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009) (broad view of unfair or deceptive practices under MMPA)
- Campbell v. Travelers Cos., Inc., 668 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation and discovery considerations)
- C.E. Light Co. v. United States, 766 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1985) (standard for asserting additional discovery)
- Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., Inc., 833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Rule 56(d) fishing expedition caution)