877 F. Supp. 2d 192
D.N.J.2012Background
- This is a putative nationwide consumer class action under CAFA jurisdiction against Beam Global Spirits and Wine, LLC and Jim Beam Brands Co. over Skinny Girl Margarita misrepresentation claims.
- Plaintiffs allege the product was marketed as all natural yet contains sodium benzoate, a preservative, making claims deceptive and fraudulent.
- Plaintiffs contend a nationwide advertising campaign falsely claimed all-natural, preservative-free, and health-conscious attributes across multiple media and packaging.
- Plaintiffs purchased Skinny Girl Margarita from New Jersey liquor retailers for their own use, not directly from Beam, and seek relief for unjust enrichment among other claims.
- Beam moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) seeking dismissal with prejudice of the unjust enrichment claim; court converts to 12(b)(6) analysis and denies the motion.
- Court Reasoning notes NJ choice-of-law issues will be addressed later, but for now NJ law governs the named Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment can lie when purchased from a retailer | Plaintiffs contend a direct retailer purchase does not bar unjust enrichment under NJ law. | Beam argues no direct benefit to manufacturer when purchase occurs at third-party retailer. | Unjust enrichment claim plausible; not precluded at pleading stage. |
| What law governs the unjust enrichment claim for a nationwide class | NJ law should apply to named plaintiffs; class-wide choice-of-law analysis should occur at certification. | NJ law governs the claim; no broader choice-of-law analysis needed at this stage. | Court applies NJ law to named/absent NJ-class members for this ruling; defers full choice-of-law analysis. |
| Whether the pleading meets the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard | Second amended complaint alleges misrepresentations caused purchases and unjust enrichment. | Dismiss under 12(b)(6) for lack of direct benefit or actionable claim if improper. | Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim deemed plausible under NJ law. |
Key Cases Cited
- VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 641 A.2d 519 (1994) (unjust enrichment requires a benefit and an unjust retention of that benefit)
- Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 219 A.2d 334 (N.J. Super. 1966) (some direct relationship to limit liability for quasi-contract)
- Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., 203 N.J. 496, 4 A.3d 561 (2010) (consumer unjust enrichment not categorically barred when bought through retailers)
- Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (unjust enrichment not precluded where purchase implied benefit to defendant)