United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiffs responded
in opposition (Doc. 18), and Defendant replied (Doc. 21).
are four individuals-residents of Florida, Missouri,
Tennessee, and Wisconsin, respectively-seeking to represent a
nationwide class of consumers who purchased glucosamine
dietary supplements at Wal-Mart. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Plaintiffs
assert that “glucosamine sulfate has been shown to
reduce the pain of osteoarthritis, in knees in particular,
and can be equally as effective as Tylenol and some
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.” (Id. at
2.) Plaintiffs allege, however, that Defendant's
glucosamine supplement label lists glucosamine sulfate as an
ingredient “when in fact the supplements contain
glucosamine hydrochloride and potassium sulfate, less
expensive ingredients with no proven efficacy.”
(Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiffs assert that
“Defendant has long known that there is scant or
conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of glucosamine
hydrochloride for the treatment of osteoarthritis, ”
and “knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence
should have known, that its representations regarding the
Glucosamine dietary supplements it sold were false or
deceptive.” (Id. at 2, 17.)
simply, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's mislabeled
glucosamine supplements induced them to purchase a product
that was ineffective and unfit for treating their joint pain
and seek monetary damages as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs advance seven specific claims
Count I - Breach of implied warranties in
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Count II - Breach of implied warranties in
violation of Florida, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin
state law; Count III - Unjust enrichment or
Count IV - Negligent misrepresentation:
Count V - Violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”);
Count VI - Violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and
Count VII - Unfair trade practices in
violation of Wisconsin state law.
(Doc. 1 at 19-32.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs'
claims are all subject to dismissal because they are
preempted by federal law or fail on their merits and adds
that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek equitable relief. (Doc.
survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 768 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that ...