Pattie v. Coach, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90929
N.D. Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiff Julie Pattie alleges Coach factory-store employees handed out coupons stating “TAKE AN ADDITIONAL 50% OFF YOUR PURCHASE VALID TODAY ONLY IN THIS COACH FACTORY LOCATION,” but such coupons are distributed nearly daily, so the advertised limited-time discount was allegedly deceptive.
- Pattie sued on behalf of an Ohio class and asserted claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) §§ 1345.02(B)(1) and (B)(8), breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud; Coach removed under CAFA and moved to partially dismiss.
- Coach moved to dismiss all claims except Pattie’s individual § 1345.02(B)(8) claim; Pattie opposed and sought leave to amend in the alternative.
- The court applied federal pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and Rule 9(b) for fraud-related claims, and reviewed OCSPA class-notice requirements under O.R.C. § 1345.09(B).
- The court dismissed the OCSPA class claims for failure to plead prior notice (no substantially similar prior court determinations or applicable Attorney General rule for in-store coupons), dismissed the individual § 1345.02(B)(1) claim (statute does not cover price as a “benefit”), and dismissed breach, fraud, and unjust-enrichment claims for reasons explained below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCSPA class claims (prior notice under § 1345.09(B)) | Pattie: Attorney General public-filed matters and an AG rule supply prior notice that Coach’s coupon practice is deceptive | Coach: Cited matters are consent decrees/default judgment or concern out-of-store ads and thus do not give prior notice for in-store coupons | Dismissed: consent decrees/defaults not sufficient; cited matters and rule concern out-of-store ads and are not substantially similar, so no prior notice for class claims |
| OCSPA individual § 1345.02(B)(1) claim | Pattie: “benefit” in (B)(1) includes price/discount | Coach: (B)(1) addresses product characteristics/benefits, not price; price addressed by (B)(8) | Dismissed: (B)(1) does not cover price; claim fails |
| Breach of contract | Pattie: coupon terms (50% off) created contract/offer | Coach: coupons lack essential contract terms (parties, subject, quantity, definite price) | Dismissed: coupons are ambiguous and lack essential terms, so no enforceable contract |
| Fraud and unjust enrichment (fraud-based) | Pattie: alleged repeated receipt of coupons and purchases; seeks leave to amend | Coach: fraud allegations fail Rule 9(b) — lack of time, place, actor, content | Dismissed: fraud-based claims not pled with particularity under Rule 9(b); unjust enrichment based on fraud also dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Marrone v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 110 Ohio St.3d 5, 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006) (OCSPA prior-notice requires substantial similarity to previously declared deceptive practices)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Ass’n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation on pleading sufficiency standard applying Twombly)
- Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d 708 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (consent decrees/defaults do not supply OCSPA prior notice; require court determinations with reasoning)
- Scotts Co. v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., 403 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 2005) (requirements for formation of an enforceable contract in Ohio)
- United States v. Ford Motor Co., 532 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2008) (Rule 9(b) requires particulars: time, place, content, and identity of speaker for fraud claims)