Greer v. Hagen

• Decision Date: 28 March 2023
• Docket Number: 3:20-CV-262-KAC-DCP
• Parties: ROBERT GREER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CAROL HAGEN, d/b/a TENNESSEE ARTISAN HONEY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

1

ROBERT GREER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CAROL HAGEN, d/b/a TENNESSEE ARTISAN HONEY, Defendant.

No. 3:20-CV-262-KAC-DCP

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville

March 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Judge

This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' “Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint” [Doc. 54]. Because permitting Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint would be futile and, alternatively, would cause undue prejudice at this stage in the litigation, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion.

I. Procedural Background

On June 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint against six (6) Defendants, alleging (1) Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count One) (against all Defendants); (2) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Count Two) (against Defendants Strange Honey Farm, LLC; Gary Strange; and Fonda Strange (collectively, Strange Honey Defendants)); (3) violation of the North Carolina Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count Three) (against the Strange Honey Defendants); (4) violation of the Florida Uniform Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count Four) (against the Strange Honey Defendants); and (5) violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (Count Five) (against the Strange Honey Defendants) [Doc. 1]. The Strange Honey Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all Counts on June 3, 2020, [Doc. 18], and Defendants Ingles Markets, Inc. and K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc. d/b/a Food City (collectively, Stores Defendants) filed a separate Motion to Dismiss Count One against them on August 3, 2020, [Doc. 27]. At no time after the filing of these initial motions to dismiss did Plaintiffs seek to amend the initial Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). The Court then granted the Strange Honey Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Stores Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs' Complaint “fail[ed] to plead the ‘circumstances' constituting each of the Moving Defendant's alleged fraud with particularity” “under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b)” [See Docs. 50 at 1; 51 at 1]. As a result, the sole remaining Defendant in this case is “Carol Hagen d/b/a Tennessee Artisan Honey,” and the sole remaining claim in this case is Count One against “Carol Hagen d/b/a Tennessee Artisan Honey.”

Plaintiffs now seek to file an Amended Complaint that purportedly “cure[s] deficiencies in their Complaint” by “add[ing] factual support and clarification as to its allegations with regard to the times and locations of the alleged wrongful conduct of Defendants” [Doc. 54 at 2]. The proposed Amended Complaint would bring the five (5) previously-dismissed Defendants back into this case and would revive four (4) previously-dismissed claims.

The proposed Amended Complaint alleges that:

3. [.] Plaintiff Greer bought Strange Honey at Ingles in Tennessee on November 8, 2018.

4. [...] Plaintiff Riemer bought Strange Honey at Food City in Nashville, Tennessee on October 28, 2019 and on March 19, 2022.

5. [.] Plaintiff Barker bought Strange Honey from the Tennessee Artisan Honey website (http://tennesseeartisanhoney.com/help-the-bees.html) from her home in Illinois on February 21, 2020. [And]

7. [.] Plaintiff Bowers bought Strange Honey in Florida from Amazon on February 27, 2020.

[Id. ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 7]. Like the initial Complaint, the proposed Amended Complaint does not identify any particular date that Plaintiff Tucker Goodman and Plaintiff Amber Turner purchased Strange Honey that was allegedly sold in a deceptive way [See generally id.].

The proposed Amended Complaint continues to allege that “Strange Honey's labels are false and misleading” because “[t]he honey is neither raw, nor is it from Tennessee” [Id. ¶ 19]. But it also alleges that:

The Strange Honey purchased by Plaintiffs in 2020 that t [sic] has been tested is from Vietnam. Moreover, it is not 100% honey. Syrup has been added to the honey, because syrup is much cheaper-about one tenth the price of pure honey. As more fully set forth below, Strange Honey is cooked when it is processed. Strange Honey purchased honey from Vietnam when it could not meet the demands for its honey with locally grown honey. It has also added corn syrup to its honey in order to meet consumer demand. Additionally, honey purchased by Plaintiffs in 2020 that was tested is from Argentina and was cooked when processed.

[Id. (emphasis added)]. Both Plaintiff Jane Barker and Plaintiff Dolores Bowers allegedly bought Strange Honey in 2020 in different states [See Id. ¶¶ 5, 7]. Notably, the allegations related to testing do not identify which of the “Strange Honey purchased by Plaintiffs in 2020” was tested, which Plaintiff purchased the honey that was tested, or the state(s) in which the honey that was tested was purchased [See generally id.].

Relatedly, the proposed Amended Complaint alleges that:

Some of the 2020 Strange Honey samples tested had HMF values of 109, 96, 88 and 122, in addition to testing positive for syrup and with a 100% certainty that the honey was from Vietnam. The 2022 Strange Honey samples had similarly high HMF values and tested with 100% certainty that the honey was from Argentina.

[Id. ¶ 31 (emphasis added)]. These allegations also do not identify which of the “2020 Strange Honey samples” were tested, the Plaintiff who purchased the particular Strange Honey tested, the state(s) where the Strange Honey in those samples was purchased, or whether these particular 2020 samples are the same as the 2020 samples identified earlier in the proposed Amended Complaint.

The allegations also do not identify whether the “2022 Strange Honey samples” are the same as the Strange Honey purchased by Plaintiff Jeffrey Riemer in 2022 [See generally id.]. And the proposed Amended Complaint does not allege any testing was conducted on the Strange Honey purchased by Plaintiff Robert Greer at Ingles in Tennessee in 2018 and Plaintiff Riemer at Food City in Tennessee in 2019 [See generally id.].

As to the Strange Honey Defendants' knowledge for all five (5) Counts, the proposed Amended Complaint continues to allege that:

At all relevant times, Strange Honey knew or was reckless in not knowing that its honey was (a) defective, (b) adulterated with syrup, (c) did not have the attributes of raw honey, and (d) the defects, if known, would have failed to meet the reasonable expectations of consumers and would not have been sold at the prices Strange Honey charges for its honey products”

[Id. ¶ 36]. Like the initial Complaint, the proposed Amended Complaint does not identify the “relevant times” at issue in this action [See generally id.]. And as to the remaining Defendants' knowledge relevant to Count One, the proposed Amended Complaint alleges:

14. [...] Food City had knowledge that the Strange Honey that it sold was adulterated as described in this Complaint.

15. [.] Ms. Hagen has received actual notice that Strange Honey is adulterated as described in this Complaint.

35. [.] Moreover, each of the Defendant retailers Food City, Ingles and Tennessee Artisan Honey had actual knowledge of Strange Honey's defects.

39. Defendants Ingles, Food City and Tennessee Artisan Honey sell directly to consumers. Ingles, Food City and Tennessee Artisan Honey all had actual knowledge that Strange Honey was not raw, not from Tennessee and not 100% honey. Despite this knowledge, Ingles, Food City and Tennessee Artisan Honey continued to sell Strange Honey to consumers with the honey mislabeled as described above.

49. Defendants Ingles, Food City and Tennessee Artisan Honey sold Strange Honey to consumers, knowing that the honey was adulterated and not as advertised. They had actual knowledge of the nature of Strange Honey's adulteration because Plaintiff Greer told them. In spite of this knowledge, they continued to sell Strange Honey with its false and misleading labels.

50. The representations made by Strange Honey, its Owner Members, Ingles, Food City and Tennessee Artisan Honey were false when made.

51. The representations were made either knowingly or with reckless disregard as to their veracity.

54. The Defendants supplied information to the Plaintiffs in the form of advertising and labeling. This information included the following representation: Strange Honey is raw, 100% pure and from Tennessee.

55. This representation was false in all respects.

56. The Defendants did not exercise reasonable care in obtaining or communicating this information.

[Id. ¶¶ 14, 15, 35, 39, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56]. These allegations are identical to those contained in the initial Complaint [See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 14, 15, 35, 39, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56]. Like the initial Complaint, the proposed Amended Complaint still does not identify the date when any Plaintiff allegedly informed each of the Defendants of the misrepresentation or the date that the Defendants were provided any actual notice of the misrepresentations [See generally id.].

II. Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “the court's leave” is required for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint at this stage. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) also instructs that the Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). But justice does not require the Court to grant leave to amend if the amendment would be futile or cause “undue prejudice to the opposing party.” See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. An amendment is futile where the complaint, as amended, “could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).

While Plaintiffs' proposed Amended Complaint does provide...