63 F. Supp. 3d 412
D.N.J.2014Background
- Plaintiff purchased Excedrin Migraine in October 2013 in New Jersey to relieve migraines.
- Plaintiff observed Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength appeared identical in ingredients and quantities, but paid more for Migraine believing it was more effective.
- Plaintiff brings NJCFA and common law unjust enrichment claims on behalf of purchasers who paid higher prices for Excedrin Migraine since August 1, 2005.
- Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength share the same formulation; Excedrin Migraine was FDA-approved in January 1998 with the same ingredients as Excedrin Extra Strength.
- Defendant Briston-Myers Squibb sold both products at similar wholesale and suggested retail prices; current wholesale differentials exist by package size.
- Court granted Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal without prejudice, with leave to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pricing of identical products constitutes unconscionable practice under NJCFA | Yingst argues pricing excess constitutes unconscionable practice | Pricing differential is market-driven and not unconscionable | Not a plausible NJCFA violation |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim states a cognizable quasi-contract theory | Plaintiff paid for higher-priced Migraine product and may seek unjust enrichment | Plaintiff received what she paid for; no unjust enrichment | Dismissed unjust enrichment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (N.J. 2009) (NJCFA interpreted liberally; strong consumer protection policy)
- Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., 203 N.J. 496 (N.J. 2010) (NJCFA framework and remedies including treble damages)
- Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 182 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2004) (NJCFA misrepresentation and unconscionable practices)
- Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J.Super. 100 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (historical context of NJCFA and unconscionable practices)
- Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Corp., 139 N.J. 392 (N.J. 1995) (definition of unconscionable commercial practice; liberal interpretation)
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (N.J. 1994) (good-faith and fair dealing standard in unconscionability prong)
- Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc., 198 N.J. 511 (N.J. 2009) (unconscionable practices in advertising/sale)
- Adamson v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 463 F.Supp.2d 496 (D.N.J. 2006) (unjust enrichment requires a benefit and unjust retention)
- K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 338 F.Supp.2d 517 (D.N.J. 2004) (unjust enrichment analysis in pharmaceutical context)
- Travelodge Hotels, Inc. v. Honeysuckle Enterprises, Inc., 357 F.Supp.2d 788 (D.N.J. 2005) (unconscionability standard similar to contract context)