Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

February 12, 2019

CYNTHIA PARKER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JOHN A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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).

         Background

         Plaintiffs 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.)

         Put 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 for relief:

Count I - Breach of implied warranties in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”);
Count II - Breach of implied warranties in violation of Florida, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin state law; Count III - Unjust enrichment or quasi-contract;
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. 12.)

         Legal Standard

         To 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.