United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District
Kaley Diann Silva (“Silva”) and Lindsey Avenetti
(“Avenetti”) commenced this action against
defendant Rite Aid Corporation (“Rite Aid”).
Plaintiffs allege several Pennsylvania common-law and
statutory claims against Rite Aid, claiming that certain Rite
Aid product labeling was misleading. (Doc. 38). Rite Aid
moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). (Doc. 50).
Factual Background and Procedural History
Aid is a nationwide drug store chain and a retailer of
nutritional supplements. (Doc. 38 ¶¶ 8, 10). Rite
Aid sells its own nutritional supplements in brick-and-mortar
stores and online through its website. (See id.
¶¶ 3, 10). These nutritional supplements are
packaged using two product labels. The principal display
panel label is located on the front of the bottle and
contains basic information about the product, including the
name of the nutritional supplement, the delivery mechanism
(e.g., capsule, tablet), and the quantity of pills.
(See Id. ¶¶ 35-37, 47-48; see,
e.g., id. at 22, Figure 5a). The supplement
facts label, located on the back of the bottle, provides a
more detailed description of the product’s ingredients
and serving size. (See, e.g., id.
at 22, Figure 5a). In Rite Aid’s stores, these bottles
are placed next to and above a pricing label. (Id.
¶ 49). The pricing label conveys the price, the nature
of the supplement, and the number of pills per bottle.
(Id. ¶ 49; see, e.g.,
id. at 23, Figure 5c). On Rite Aid’s website,
consumers can view the principal display panel and supplement
facts labels before purchasing by clicking on small image
icons. (See id. ¶ 71; see,
e.g., id. at 24, Figure 5b).
are Oregon residents and consumers of Rite Aid supplements.
(Id. ¶¶ 6-7). Silva purchased two bottles
of nutritional supplements at a Rite Aid store in Oregon.
(Id. ¶ 93). Silva does not allege that she read
the supplement facts labels before purchasing the bottles.
(See id. ¶¶ 99, 104). Avenetti purchased
two bottles of nutritional supplements through Rite
Aid’s online store. (Id. ¶¶ 108-09).
Avenetti similarly does not claim to have read the supplement
facts labels by clicking on its image before completing the
online transactions. (See id. ¶¶ 113,
114). Plaintiffs allege that the principal display panel
labels for the purchased products failed to accurately
specify the quantity of supplement per serving and the size
of each serving. (Id. ¶¶ 51-54).
commenced this action by filing a complaint on February 2,
2018. Plaintiffs are now proceeding on their second amended
complaint, alleging claims for intentional and negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of express and
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violation of
Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 Pa. Stat. and Cons.
Stat. Ann. § 201-1 et seq. Rite Aid moves to
dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The
motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides that a court may
dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Such jurisdictional
challenges take one of two forms: (1) parties may levy a
“factual” attack, arguing that one or more of the
pleading’s factual allegations are untrue, removing the
action from the court’s jurisdictional reach; or (2)
they may assert a “facial” challenge, which
assumes the veracity of the complaint’s allegations but
nonetheless argues that a claim is not within the
court’s jurisdiction. Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v.
AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting
CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 139 (3d Cir.
2008)). In either instance, it is the plaintiff’s
burden to establish jurisdiction. See Mortensen v. First
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d
Failure to State a Claim
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
the dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When
ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court
must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the
complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.”
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d
224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche
Holdings, Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)).
The court may also consider “matters of public record,
orders, exhibits attached to the complaint and items
appearing in the record of the case.” Mayer v.
Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus.,
Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)).
the sufficiency of the complaint, the court conducts a
three-step inquiry. See Santiago v. Warminster
Township, 629 F.3d 121, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2010). First,
“the court must ‘tak[e] note of the elements a
plaintiff must plead to state a claim.’”
Id. at 130 (alteration in original) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009)). Next,
the factual and legal elements of a claim must be separated;
well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, while mere legal
conclusions may be disregarded. Id. at 131-32;
see Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11
(3d Cir. 2009). Then, once the court isolates the
well-pleaded factual allegations, it must determine whether
they are sufficient to show a “plausible claim for
relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A claim is facially
plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts “that allow
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
to its essentia, plaintiffs’ position is that
Rite Aid’s principal display panel labels are
misleading. Plaintiffs claim that a reasonable consumer would
understand the principal display panel labels alone as
promising a full serving of nutritional supplement in each
capsule or tablet. Rite Aid contends that plaintiffs lack
standing to seek injunctive relief and that ...