Shaulis v. Nordstrom Inc.
120 F. Supp. 3d 40
| D. Mass. | 2015Background
- Shaulis bought a Nordstrom Rack cardigan on 11/1/2014 for $49.97; the price tag listed a “Compare At” price of $218 and “77% savings.”
- Complaint alleges Nordstrom used fabricated former or comparable prices on Rack tags for goods made for or primarily sold at the Rack, violating Massachusetts regulations and FTC guidance.
- Plaintiff asserted class claims (Massachusetts residents who purchased Nordstrom Rack products) alleging fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violations of Mass. Code Regs. and the FTC Act, and Chapter 93A claims.
- Nordstrom removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); it submitted an attorney affidavit with attachments; plaintiff moved to strike those attachments.
- The court treated regulatory/FTC-counts and Chapter 93A as central and analyzed whether plaintiff alleged a legally cognizable injury under Chapter 93A; it also assessed common-law claims that largely rested on the alleged regulatory violations.
- Court granted Nordstrom’s motion to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim and denied the motion to strike as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count Four (CMR & FTC) states a private claim | Nordstrom’s price comparisons violate 940 CMR and FTC Guides, giving rise to claims | FTC Act and CMR do not create private causes of action | Dismissed: no private right of action under FTC Act or Mass. regulations |
| Whether Chapter 93A claim (Count Five) is viable without traditional economic injury | Shaulis was induced to buy by deceptive price tags and suffered an identifiable harm (purchase she would not have made) | Absent traditional economic loss (she got what she paid for), §93A injury not shown | Dismissed: no legally cognizable injury under Chapter 93A as pleaded |
| Whether common-law claims (fraud, breach, unjust enrichment) survive when premised on regulatory violations | Regulatory noncompliance supports common-law fraud, breach, and unjust enrichment | Plaintiff alleges no pecuniary loss, no breach of benefit-of-the-bargain, and no inequitable retention of benefit | Dismissed: fraud needs pecuniary loss; contract claim lacks breach or loss; unjust enrichment insufficiently pleaded |
| Whether court may consider Nordstrom’s attachments (demand response, website photos) on motion to dismiss | Plaintiff: attachments irrelevant and outside the complaint; move to strike | Nordstrom: attachments not outcome-determinative; they show settlement offer and website content | Motion to strike denied as moot — attachments do not affect dismissal analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard; assume well‑pleaded facts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (pleading must be more than conclusory)
- Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc., 607 F.3d 250 (1st Cir.) (Chapter 93A requires cognizable economic injury; mere use of products without harm may not suffice)
- Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car Co., 445 Mass. 790 (Mass.) (Chapter 93A requires invasion of legal right and causation of economic or non‑economic loss)
- Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492 (Mass.) (violation of legal right alone does not automatically establish §93A recoverable injury)
- Klairmont v. Gainsboro Restaurant, 465 Mass. 165 (Mass.) (regulatory violations qualify under §93A only if conduct is unfair or deceptive and in trade/commerce)
- Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151 (Mass.) (older SJC language suggesting regulatory violations can constitute injury under §93A)