Tag Archives MMPA

Plaintiffs may not avoid removal under CAFA by amending their complaint after removal to restrict the class to nondiverse individuals, held the court in Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-189-RLW, 2016 WL 5660237 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 29, 2016). In Pudlowski, Plaintiffs sued the Rams in a Missouri state court under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), alleging that the Rams mislead them about the team’s future location and thus caused them to buy tickets, merchandise, and concessions. Id. at *1. Defendants removed the case to federal court under CAFA, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand back to state court, and Defendants then appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which remanded to the Eastern District of Missouri, instructing the District Court to weigh two declarations from alleged class members. Id. at *2. Under CAFA, federal district courts have jurisdiction over class actions only if (among other requirements) there…

We know the general rule that a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") plaintiff cannot merely allege some undefined loss: the loss must be ascertainable, meaning the plaintiff must state an actual amount or a method for calculating the amount. Now add a corollary principle: not only must the loss be ascertainable, but whatever that amount is, it must constitute a net loss when measuring the difference between the actual or reasonable value of the product or service and the amount that plaintiff paid. That’s the takeaway from Cregan v. Mortgage One Corp., No. 4:16 CV 387 RWS, 2016 WL 3072395, at *5 (E.D. Mo. June 1, 2016). In Cregan, plaintiffs entered into a loan agreement with defendant that encumbered their real property. Id. at *1. After plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy, defendant filed a notice of claim that included a charge for $56,000 in “daily simple interest” due, and plaintiffs claimed that the…

Plaintiffs can no longer base Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) claims on sales “puffery”—i.e., exaggerated statements upon which no reasonable consumer would rely, or vague or highly subjective claims of product superiority. That’s the message from Hurst v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. WD 78665, 2016 WL 1128297 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2016). In Hurst, Plaintiffs alleged that Nissan violated the MMPA by making representations that “tended to create a false impression” about the quality of its “FX” sport utility vehicles, some of which developed dashboard bubbling from heat and humidity. Id. at *3. In particular, the FX’s marketing materials displayed FX dashboards and stated that the FX contained “premium automotive machinery” and “room for everything except compromise” and that the FX was “a superior product representing excellent value,” “uncompromising,” and “premium.” Id. at *4. The trial court certified a class of 326 Missourians who purchased Infiniti’s FX35 and…

To state an omission-based MMPA claim in federal court, a plaintiff may not rely on generic allegations that a defendant failed to disclose an alleged product defect. Nor may a plaintiff rely on prior consumer complaints as the basis for alleging that a defendant concealed a material fact. That’s the lesson from Johnsen v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 4:14CV594 RLW, 2016 WL 1242545 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 29, 2016). In that case, plaintiff claimed that Honeywell’s representations about its humidifiers’ quality, along with a five-year warranty, amounted to an actionable “unfair practice” under the MMPA where the humidifiers allegedly broke down repeatedly. On March 29, 2016, the Eastern District of Missouri ruled on defendant Honeywell International’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, holding that bare allegations that defendants “knew, or reasonably should have known” that their products contained some defect and that they “concealed and failed to disclose such alleged…

Close