Poorly argued complaint gets horsepower hopes poured down the sink
Shredded
When Alejandro Callegari filed a class action against defendant Blendtec in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah, he claimed to have been misled by packaging claims on Blendtec's "Blendtec Classic 475 120v Blender," which he purchased online in July 2017. He alleged that he bought it specifically for its considerable horsepower – Blendtec sells models that boast 3.0-3.8 HP, which is presumably higher than the consumer blender industry standard.
But Callegari claimed that when he started blending with the Blendtec Classic, he became convinced that it was not living up to its advertised horsepower. He went ahead and enlisted electrical and mechanical engineers to test Blendtec's claims. He alleged that their testing "concluded that no Blender exceeded more than 25% of the power output claimed by Blendtec, and that each power representation used to market the Blenders was materially overstated and false."
In April 2018, Callegari filed suit, accusing Blendtec of violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA), breach of express and implied warranty, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Bait and Glitch
The District Court examined Callegari's complaint and dismissed his claims in their entirety. However, the dismissal was not due to his use of legal arguments, but rather because the complaint failed to cite appropriate Utah law.
The District Court held that Callegari's claims under the UCSPA failed because while he alleged false advertising in his claim, he cited Utah code, which prohibited bait and switch advertising. "Plaintiff did not allege that he was diverted from the product advertised by Blendtec to some other product," the District Court wrote. "He only stated that he would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less for it, had he known that the blender was not as powerful as advertised."
Moreover, the District Court held, "Plaintiff has also failed to plead or provide to the court any other applicable rule that Blendtec may have violated."
The Takeaway
It might have ended there, but Callegari's suit was met with a further indignity. "Even assuming that Plaintiff could satisfy the UCSPA requirements for pleading a class action for damages," the District Court wrote, "Plaintiff's UCSPA claims would nevertheless fail for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)."
Rule 9(b) requires that "[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." In the District Court's opinion, Callegari's complaint was undermined by his simple omissions of fact, including failure to mention where the blender was purchased, where he observed the false statements, and the specific misrepresentations made about the model he purchased.
"The Complaint did not specifically set forth the 'who, what, when, where and how' of Mr. Callegari's purchase, or of any specific blender," the District Court concluded. "Rather, Plaintiff made general statements regarding Defendant's advertising practices ... insufficient to satisfy the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9."
This complaint and dismissal is a reminder of the importance of properly constructing the arguments in a pleading for the court's review. Although the plaintiff may have had a strong case for damages, the insufficient citations to the proper law, incongruent arguments, and failure to satisfy pleading standards were ultimately the death knell to this particular complaint.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
