Brown v. Sharkninja Operating LLC

1

PATRICIA BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Defendant.

No. 23-21135-ESK-MJS

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

October 23, 2024

OPINION

EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC's motion to dismiss (Motion) (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff Patricia Brown filed an opposition (ECF No. 16 (Pl.'s Opp'n Br.)) to which defendant replied (ECF No. 19 (Def.'s Reply Br.)).^[1] For the following reasons, the Motion will be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a domiciliary of Monmouth County, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1 (Compl.) p.4.) She seeks to represent a class of consumers who purchased defendant's cookware in New Jersey based on representations that the cookware would not stick, chip, or flake or that the cookware was manufactured at 30,000 degrees Fahrenheit. (Id. pp.14, 15.) Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company principally based in Massachusetts that markets, sells, and distributes household goods. (Id. p.4.)^[2] In response to a complaint by defendant's competitor, the National Advertising Division of Better Business Bureau National Programs (National Advertising Division) ruled in August 2021 that defendant's claims that its NeverStick Premium Cookware “‘never sticks' … convey[ed] an unsupported superiority message that, unlike traditional non-stick cookware which rapidly loses its non-stick properties, NeverStick cookware would exhibit a greater level of resistance against sticking, chipping, and flaking.” (Id. pp. 6, 7.) Defendant later changed its packaging and advertising to include claims that products “[w]on't” rather than will “[n]ever” stick, chip, or flake. (Id pp. 7, 8.) Both before and after the ruling, defendant promoted its NeverStick Premium Cookware as being manufactured using a 30,000-degree process that ensured that products would not stick, chip, of flake while competitors merely manufactured products at 900 degrees. (Id. p. 8.)

Defendant's claims on packaging and in product descriptions are false, misleading, and deceiving to a reasonable consumer for two reasons, according to plaintiff. (Id. p. 12.) First, defendant's products do chip, flake, and lose their nonstick properties within a few months of purchase or lose their nonstick properties more rapidly than the less-expensive products of competitors. (Id.) Second, defendant's purported 30,000-degree manufacturing process not only fails to ensure that products will not chip, flake, or lose their nonstick properties, but the process itself is impossible as aluminum would vaporize at such temperatures. (Id.)

Plaintiff purchased two of defendant's 12-inch frying pans from Macy's website in September 2021. (Id. p. 13.) Prior to her purchase, plaintiff viewed defendant's “NeverStick” brand name; claim that products either never or would not stick, chip, or flake as compared to competing products; and that products would not rapidly lose their nonstick properties due to defendant's 30,000-degree manufacturing process. (Id.) If plaintiff knew that defendant's products chip, flake, or lose their nonstick properties within a few months or more rapidly than less-expensive competitors; defendant's purported 30,000-degree manufacturing process is impossible or fails to ensure that products will not chip, flake, or lose their nonstick properties; and defendant's claims were deceptive she would not have purchased the pans or would not have paid a premium price for them. (Id. pp. 13, 14.) Plaintiff states as an example that defendant's 10- and 12-inch NeverStick Premium Cookware pans sell for $49.99 and $59.99, respectively. (Id. p.14.) Comparable Farberware 10- and 12-inch pans sell for $8.97 and $19.99, respectively, with three-pan sets available for $22.99. (Id.)

Plaintiff asserts a single count, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Consumer Fraud Act). (Id. p. 17.) Defendant continues to violate the Consumer Fraud Act through deception, fraud, false promises, or misrepresentations, according to plaintiff. (Id. p. 18.) Plaintiff and proposed class members have suffered economic injuries because they otherwise would not have purchased defendant's products or would not have paid as much for them. (Id. pp.17, 18.) Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, statutory treble damages, interest, and reasonable fees and costs. (Id. p. 18.)

II. STANDARDS

A. Motions to Dismiss

Prior to the filing of a responsive pleading, a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must provide ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,'” Doe v. Princeton Univ., 30 F.4th 335, 341 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)), and-accepting the plaintiff's factual assertions, but not legal conclusions, as true-“‘plausibly suggest[]' facts sufficient to ‘draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,'” id. at 342 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Courts further evaluate the sufficiency of a complaint by “(1) identifying the elements of the claim, (2) reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) looking at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluating whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged.” Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).

B. Consumer Fraud Act

The Consumer Fraud Act prohibits:

The act, use or employment by any person of any commercial practice that is unconscionable or abusive, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise ....

N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8-2.

In order to state a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act, a plaintiff “must allege: ‘(1) unlawful conduct; (2) an ascertainable loss; and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.'” Calabria Ristorante, Inc. v. Ruggiero Seafood, Inc., 706 F.Supp.3d 489, 514 (D.N.J. 2023) (quoting Francis E. Parker Mem'l Home, Inc. v. Ga.-Pac. LLC, 945 F.Supp.2d 543, 558 (D.N.J. 2013)). The heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 9(b) applies to claims brought under the Consumer Fraud Act. Mladenov v. Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc., 124 F.Supp.3d 360, 373 (D.N.J. 2015). To satisfy this heightened pleading standard, the plaintiff must set forth their allegation “with sufficient particularity to place the defendant on notice of the precise misconduct with which it is charged and plead or allege the date, time and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of substantiation into a fraud allegation.” Calabria Ristorante, Inc., 706 F.Supp.3d at 515 (quoting Alpizar-Fallas v. Favero, 908 F.3d 910, 919 (3d Cir. 2018)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Party Arguments

Defendant asserts that plaintiff's claims fail for two reasons: she has not alleged a misrepresentation or an ascertainable loss. (ECF No. 10-1 (Def.'s Mot. Br.) p. 11.) With respect to its assertion that a misrepresentation has not been alleged, defendant contends that it has represented that super-heated plasma ceramic particles are fused to its pans, not that the pans themselves are heated to 30,000 degrees. (Id. p.14) The screenshot of a 40-second video included in the complaint mischaracterizes the 30,000-degree representation and omits the fact that a reasonable consumer watching the video would know that ceramic particles, not the pan, are heated at such temperatures. (Id.) Plaintiff has not claimed that defendant's actual representations are false by alleging that defendant's manufacturing process does not create a superior bond as compared to competitors' processes or that her pans have actually chipped, flaked, or lost their nonstick properties. (Id. p.15.) Generally, plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity as required by Rule 9(b), according to defendant. (Id. pp.15, 16.)

Next, defendant contends that plaintiff has not pleaded an ascertainable loss. Plaintiff has not alleged that her pans are worthless, according to defendant. (Id. p.17.) Therefore, she was required to show the difference between the pans that she was promised and the ones that she received. (Id.) Plaintiff was promised a more durable, nonstick surface and the complaint does not allege that defendant's pans did not provide a more durable, nonstick surface or that her pans actually chipped, flaked, or lost their nonstick properties. (Id. pp.18, 19.) The complaint further fails to allege what plaintiff actually paid for her pans or that Farberware products are comparable in quality, durability, or material. (Id. pp.19, 20.)

Plaintiff responds that whether a statement has a capacity to mislead is a question of fact inappropriate for a motion to dismiss and that her pleading satisfies Rule 9(b)'s standard. (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. pp.13, 14.) Defendant has falsely and misleadingly conveyed to consumers that cookware manufactured at 30,000 degrees is superior to products manufactured at lower temperatures-a claim that is especially deceptive when combined with the “NeverStick” brand name. (Id. pp. 15-20). Defendant engages in “sleight of hand” by arguing that its advertising imagery is not meant to convey that entire pans are manufactured at 30,000 degrees, according to plaintiff. (Id. pp.20,...