Coffey v. WCW & Air, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:17-cv-90-MCR-CJK |
| Parties | JONATHAN COFFEY et. al, Plaintiffs, v. WCW & AIR, INC. et. al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Plaintiffs Jonathan and Sydney Coffey (the "Coffeys") and Valerie Van Dyke filed this putative class action against Defendants WCW & Air, Inc. d/b/a World Class Water ("World Class Water"), Acquion, Inc. d/b/a Rainsoft ("Acquion"), and Home Depot, U.S.A. Inc. ("Home Depot") for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. They allege that Defendants sold them water treatment systems after creating the false impression that their home water supply was unsafe to drink. Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss, see ECF Nos. 33, 34, 35, on which the parties requested oral argument, see ECF No. 38. The Court concludes, without the need for a hearing, that Defendants' motions to dismiss should be denied.
The First Amended Complaint, and the documents the Court may consider on this motion,1 contains the following allegations. Acquion is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and markets residential water treatment systems. World Class Water, a Georgia corporation, and Home Depot, a Delaware corporation, promote and sell water treatment products and services. Van Dyke and the Coffeys are Florida consumers who signed purchase agreements for an Acquion water treatment system on February 18, 2014 (Van Dyke) and June 18, 2016 (the Coffeys), respectively. Van Dyke "purchased" the water treatment system by paying out of pocket while the Coffeys have "agreed to purchase" the system but have yet to pay off the debt owed to Defendants. Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and other Florida consumers who "purchased" or "agreed to purchase" an Acquion water treatment system based on the following allegations, common to them and others in their proposed class.
World Class Water and/or Home Depot employees approach consumers in Home Depot stores, requesting the consumers' contact information in exchange for free Home Depot gift cards or other inducements. Using this information, a salesperson, employed by either World Class Water or another Aquion dealer, contacts the consumers to schedule a free, in-home test of the quality of their tap water. Thereafter, a salesman for World Class Water or another Acquion dealer,2 using materials and instructions approved by Aquion, conducts the in-home test. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants know, but do not disclose, that the water quality test is only capable of detecting the presence of minerals contained in any municipality's tap water - and cannot detect contaminants or show that water is safe for consumption. Based on the test results, which invariably show the water to be "contaminated" by these minerals, consumers purchase or agree to purchase Aquion residential water treatment systems. Because these systems cost thousands of dollars - even though at least one comparable system costs less than $200 - consumers who cannot afford a system out of pocket are offered Home Depot credit cards to finance their purchase.3 See ECF No. 1-1 at 36. In at least some cases, such as the Coffeys', Home Depot also orders and arranges for the installation of the water treatmentsystem. In short, Plaintiffs allege that the water quality test is a scam, created solely to sow fear and sell products and services.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. To survive a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations in a complaint must state a claim that is "plausible on its face," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and "raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To make this determination, courts must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010). Dismissal is appropriate only where "no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action." Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Marshall Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993)).
Acquion argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this suit, World Class Water argues that the Amended Complaint is a "shotgun pleading," and all three Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly state their claims for FDUTPA violations, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The Court addresses each argument, in turn.
Acquion argues that the Coffeys lack standing because they have yet to pay off the debt they owe on their water treatment system.4 Because standing is jurisdictional, the Court addresses this argument as a preliminary matter. See Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008) (). Article III provides that a plaintiff has standing to bring suit if "he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant," the injury "fairly can be traced to the challenged action," and "is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separate of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 474 (1982). The Coffeys satisfy this standard. Plaintiffs allege that: (1) the Coffeys suffered actual injury by paying a non-refundable $49.00 processing fee and incurring thousands of dollars of debt, (2) these injuries occurred due to Defendants' scheme to sell water treatment systems, and (3) Defendants' conduct violates FDUTPA and support their claims of unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. These allegations establish the Coffeys'standing at this stage.5 See Bischoff v. Osceola County, Fla., 22 F.3d 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2000) ().
The Eleventh Circuit has warned that, if the plaintiff has filed a "shotgun pleading," which would make it "virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief," the Court should require the plaintiff to replead before going through the onerous task of trying to decipher the allegations at issue. See Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir. 1996). World Class Water argues that the First Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading because it "lump[s] together all defendants," making it difficult to discern the conduct each Defendant allegedly committed. See ECF No. 33 at 9-11. The Court disagrees. Although the First Amended Complaint refers to Defendants collectively in some instances, it also refers to Defendants' specific actions in others. In this circumstance, it is reasonable to infer that, where Defendants are "lump[ed] together," the allegations apply to allDefendants. See infra at Part III(c) ().
To state a FDUTPA claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages. Baptist Hosp., Inc. v. Baker, 84 So. 3d 1200, 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). An unfair practice is "one that offends established public policy and one that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers" while a deceptive act "occurs if there is a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment." See PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt, Inc., 842 So.2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003) (). Because FDUTPA claims focus on the defendant's conduct, whether an individual plaintiff relied on the unfair or deceptive practice is irrelevant. See Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., 635 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2011) () (quoting Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So.2d 971, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)).
The parties dispute whether Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard applies to FDUTPA claims, and district courts in this circuit are split on this issue. See Harris v. Nordyne, LLC, No. 14-CIV-21884-BLOOM/Valle, 2014 WL 12516076, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2014) (). The Court need not weigh in because Plaintiffs' FDUTPA claim survives, regardless. Rule 9(b) requires that, "[i]n all averments of fraud ... the circumstances constituting fraud ... shall be stated with particularity." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). This requires providing defendants notice of:
See Ziemba v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs satisfy this standard.
The First Amended Complaint, read with the contracts Defendants asked the Court to consider on this motion, see supra footnote 1,6 reflects that:
To continue reading
Request your trial