Wildcat Retro Brands LLC v. NWL Distributing LLC
8:20-cv-04207
| D.S.C. | Apr 20, 2021Background
- Wildcat Retro Brands supplied custom-printed facemasks, neck gaiters, and apparel to NWL Distributing, which sold goods on Amazon under the trade name "Elite Fan Shop."
- In mid‑2020 Wildcat filled large, expedited orders from NWL on credit; NWL later refused shipments and failed to pay.
- Vetta/Blue Point and KeyBank allegedly restructured/control NWL, caused transfers that left NWL underfunded, and sold NWL to Lakeshirts without providing for Wildcat’s unpaid claims.
- Wildcat alleges Amazon released its UCC lien, continued selling Wildcat’s unpaid inventory for Lakeshirts, and routed search traffic for Retro Brand products to the Elite Fan Shop.
- Wildcat sued, asserting civil conspiracy and an "Unfair Trade Practices Act" claim (pleaded as 15 U.S.C. § 45). Amazon moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court dismissed the § 45 claim (no private right of action), reserved ruling on other grounds pending a determination of federal subject‑matter jurisdiction (complete diversity), and ordered parties to submit citizenship information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private claim exists under 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act) | Wildcat treated its "Unfair Trade Practices Act" count as a federal FTC Act claim and sought relief under § 45 | Amazon argued no private right of action exists under § 45 | Court: No private right of action under § 45; claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether the court has federal subject‑matter jurisdiction | Wildcat pleaded federal question jurisdiction under § 45 and diversity; argues federal jurisdiction exists | Amazon argued dismissal of § 45 leaves only diversity; parties’ citizenships are not alleged so jurisdiction is unclear | Court: § 45 cannot supply federal question jurisdiction; ordered both parties (and others) to disclose member citizenship to determine diversity jurisdiction; ruling on other claims reserved |
| Sufficiency of remaining claims (e.g., civil conspiracy) under Rule 12(b)(6) | Wildcat alleges Amazon facilitated the asset transfer, sold unpaid inventory, and steered customers to Lakeshirts’ Elite Fan Shop — alleging conspiracy/unfairness | Amazon moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; argued the FTC Act claim is deficient and other claims lack sufficient pleaded facts | Court: Declined to rule on merits of remaining claims pending resolution of subject‑matter jurisdiction; motion otherwise reserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes the plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applies Twombly’s plausibility standard to factual allegations)
- E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2000) (court accepts alleged facts but not unwarranted inferences on a motion to dismiss)
- Summey v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 449 F. Supp. 132 (D.S.C. 1976) (no private right of action under the Federal Trade Commission Act)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (federal courts must ensure subject‑matter jurisdiction even if unchallenged)
- Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Ltd. Fin. Servs., LP, 972 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2020) (complete diversity requires no shared citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant)