Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that a plaintiff had not met the heightened pleading standard required for an unfair and deceptive practices claim in a suit alleging liability for injuries resulting from a cooking spray explosion.

Pochanart Ericson was working in a food truck in Massachusetts when a cannister of Conagra Chef’s Quality Cooking Spray exploded, injuring her. She sued Conagra Foods, Inc., and Conagra Brands, Inc.—the companies that formulated the cooking spray and labeled it—and Full-Fill Industries, LLC—the company that filled and sealed the DOT-2Q container used for the cooking spray. The plaintiff asserted claims for negligence, breach of warranty, and unfair and deceptive business practices. The defense moved to dismiss the complaint, which was filed in Massachusetts federal district court. The court transferred the case to the Northern District of Illinois and then granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the unfair and deceptive practices claim, giving the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the defense moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Granting the motion, the court noted that claims alleging fraud must satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), which requires a complaint to state the identity of the person making the misrepresentation, the time, place, and content of the misrepresentation; and the method by which the misrepresentation was communicated to the plaintiff. Citing case law, the court said that, put differently, a complaint must describe the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud.

Applying this standard here, the court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not identify any actual representation made by the defendants or where she had read them. The plaintiff’s reference to advertising, marketing, and promotions—through which, the plaintiff alleged, the defendant had warranted that the cooking spray was safe—do not identify where or when she read those purported warranties, the court said. Thus, the court concluded, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the Rule 9(b) requirements regarding the warranties or representations allegedly made by the defendants. Consequently, the court dismissed the unfair practices claims with prejudice.

Citation: Ericson v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2024 WL 168100 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2024).