17 F.4th 1084
11th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Marrache purchased Bombay Sapphire gin that lists “grains of paradise” among its botanicals and sued Bacardi (maker) and Winn‑Dixie (retailer) on behalf of Florida consumers.
- He alleged violations of Fla. Stat. § 562.455 (1868 felony statute banning adulteration of liquor with grains of paradise), FDUTPA (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.), and unjust enrichment, seeking damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
- Defendants removed under CAFA and moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption (Food Additives Amendment / FFDCA and FDA GRAS determinations), failure to plead FDUTPA causation/actual damages, and failure to state unjust enrichment.
- The district court dismissed with prejudice, reasoning § 562.455 was preempted by the Food Additives Amendment and that Marrache failed to allege actual damages or an unjust enrichment theory.
- The Eleventh Circuit held § 562.455 is not preempted but affirmed dismissal on alternative grounds: FDUTPA’s safe‑harbor (FDA has designated grains of paradise as GRAS) and failure to plausibly allege actual damages; unjust enrichment also fails; dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse because amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. § 562.455 is preempted by the Food Additives Amendment / FFDCA | § 562.455 should survive because the FDA/FFDCA only keeps unsafe additives off market and GRAS status does not force states to allow an additive | Food Additives Amendment and FDA regulations conflict with § 562.455 because FDA has listed grains of paradise as GRAS | § 562.455 is NOT preempted; no physical impossibility or obstacle to Congress’s purposes (but district court erred in finding preemption) |
| Whether FDUTPA claims survive (safe harbor) | Marrache: violations of § 562.455 and Fla. § 500.04 support FDUTPA; Bombay is “worthless,” so actual damages are alleged | Defendants: FDUTPA’s safe harbor bars claims specifically permitted by federal law; also no plausible allegation of actual damages or causation | FDUTPA claims are barred by FDUTPA’s safe‑harbor because FDA specifically permits grains of paradise (GRAS). Alternatively, claims fail for lack of plausible actual damages |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim states a claim | Plaintiff: paid for Bombay, thus conferred benefit and retention is inequitable because product violated § 562.455 | Defendants: no direct benefit to Bacardi from purchases at Winn‑Dixie; plaintiffs received what was advertised (grains of paradise disclosed); no inequity | Unjust enrichment fails: no direct benefit to Bacardi alleged and no inequity where product and ingredient were disclosed and lawful under federal regulation |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiff: should be allowed another chance to amend | Defendants: amendment would be futile given safe‑harbor/absence of damages/direct benefit | Not an abuse: further amendment would be futile, so dismissal with prejudice upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Debernardis v. IQ Formulations, LLC, 942 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2019) (purchase of products Congress has banned can be valueless at motion‑to‑dismiss stage)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (principles for preemption analysis and presumption against preemption)
- Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019) (Supremacy Clause / preemption framework principles)
- Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Tucker, 704 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 2013) (field/conflict preemption discussion and presumption against preemption)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (conflict preemption standards)
- Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963) (states’ traditional police powers over food and dual‑compliance analysis)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca‑Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014) (FFDCA statutory regime and purpose)