2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65147
D. Minn.2011Background
- Plaintiff Select Comfort sues Sleep Better for false advertising and related state consumer protection claims in the air bed market.
- Counts include Lanham Act false advertising, Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act, Minnesota UDTPA, MUTPA, and MCFA claims.
- Sleep Better moves to dismiss counts five through nine for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and for lack of public benefit under Minnesota private attorney general statute.
- Rule 9(b) pleading standard applies to fraud-based claims; Select Comfort alleges three information-and-belief fraud theories plus health-related testimonials.
- Court analyzes whether Rule 9(b) pleading is sufficiently particular and whether allegations about a misleading US-made claim and in-store to online price shifting meet requirements.
- Court concludes public-benefit requirement under Minn. private attorney general statute is not satisfied and dismisses counts seven through nine; trade-dress claim is moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 9(b) sufficiency of fraud allegations | Select Comfort pleads fraud with information and belief supported by facts. | Allegations on information and belief lack specificity and timing. | Rule 9(b) satisfied for the challenged allegations. |
| Public benefit requirement for private attorney general claims | False advertising harms the public and seeks injunctive relief for public benefit. | Claims primarily seek private damages; no public benefit shown. | Private attorney general claims lacking public benefit are dismissed. |
| Survival of remaining claims after dismissal | Several counts remain viable for relief, including injunctive relief and damages. | Counts lack public benefit and should be dismissed. | Counts seven through nine are dismissed; seven through nine vacated; remaining claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) particularity requires heightened notice, especially where facts are within opposing party's control)
- Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp., 259 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2001) (explanation of pleading standards where plaintiff is not a party to communications)
- BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2007) (contextualizes pleading and notice standards in fraud cases)
- Joshi v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2006) (illustrates notice pleading considerations in fraud claims)
- Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2003) (public-benefit analysis under Minnesota private attorney general statute)
- Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000) (public-benefit requirement limits private actions under Minn. Stat. § 8.31)
- Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2001) (public-right considerations under the private attorney general statute)
- In re Levaquin Prods. Liab. Litig., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minn. 2010) (private attorney general considerations in complex product-liability/fraud contexts)
- Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (S. Ct. 2000) (limits and scope of private litigation and public-interest considerations)