Bynum v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Background

Johnnie Bynum brought a proposed class action against Family Dollar Stores, Inc. He alleged that he bought a seven-ounce package of Eatz “smoked almonds” from a Family Dollar store in the Bronx. The front of the package displayed an image of almonds, a red color scheme, and the words “Smoked Almonds.” The ingredients list stated that the almonds were roasted in oil and contained “NATURAL SMOKE FLAVOR.”

Bynum alleged that the word “smoked” led him to believe that the almonds received their flavor through a natural smoking process. He claimed that he would not have bought the product, or would have paid less for it, had he known that it was flavored with added natural smoke flavor instead. His First Amended Complaint asserted five groups of claims: violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350; negligent misrepresentation; breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; common-law fraud; and unjust enrichment.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

Family Dollar moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim. For this motion, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true but did not accept legal conclusions or unsupported assumptions as facts.

New York General Business Law Claims

The court held that the packaging was not materially misleading to a reasonable consumer. It determined that “Smoked” was ambiguous because it could refer either to the preparation method or to the product’s flavor. The court distinguished a prior Second Circuit decision involving an unambiguously misleading “Made With Whole Grain” statement. Here, because “Smoked” was ambiguous, a reasonable consumer could consult the ingredient list for clarification.

The ingredient list stated that the almonds were roasted in oil and flavored with “Natural Smoke Flavor.” The court concluded that this information clarified that the almonds were not subjected to a smoking process. The court also rejected Bynum’s conclusory allegations about what consumers expect from a “Smoked Almonds” label, noting that he offered no empirical support for those allegations and that other packaging language undermined them. The court therefore held that Bynum failed to state claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350.

Other Claims

The court held that Bynum’s remaining claims were also based on the same alleged deception and therefore failed because the label was not materially misleading. It also gave additional reasons for dismissing those claims:

- The negligent-misrepresentation claim did not adequately allege the special relationship required to create a duty to provide correct information. - The express-warranty claim did not adequately allege that Bynum notified Family Dollar of the alleged breach. The complaint stated both that notice had been provided and that it would be provided in the future. - The implied-warranty claim did not allege that the almonds were unfit for human consumption and also did not adequately allege notice of breach. - The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim failed because Bynum had not adequately pleaded an underlying state-law warranty claim and had not alleged a written warranty as defined by that statute. The court stated that packaging descriptions do not constitute such warranties merely because they describe a product. - The fraud claim did not plead fraudulent intent with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The allegation that Family Dollar knew its statements were inaccurate was conclusory. - The unjust-enrichment claim merely duplicated Bynum’s other claims and therefore could not proceed as an alternative remedy for defective claims.

Disposition

The court granted Family Dollar’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the First Amended Complaint. The court separately denied Family Dollar’s request for oral argument. The clerk was directed to terminate the relevant docket entries and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.