DETROIT (Legal Newsline) – The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in part a fitness product company’s motion to dismiss a claim that it misrepresented one of its items.
"In particular, (Jeff) Johnston’s warranty claims are dismissed but his negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims survive. Moreover, PhD Fitness’ request to strike factual material pursuant to Rule 12(f) is denied," U.S. District Judge Laurie J. Michelson wrote in the Jan. 31 order.
Jeff Johnston alleged PhD Fitness LLC deceived customers with misleading labels on its Pre-JYM and Post-JYM supplements that allegedly claimed they had properly dosed ingredients that help boost size, strength and endurance, according to the court's opinion.
Johnston said he was manipulated and the items don’t assist with those capabilities. He said he would not have bought the products if he knew the alleged truth and sued over allegations of breach of warranty and fraud. PhD Fitness responded with a motion to dismiss in April 2017.
The court first evaluated PhD Fitness' statement the warranty claims against it should be dismissed as Johnston didn’t provide a pre-suit notice. It used Michigan’s Uniform Commercial Code to prove its case as that regulation states a consumer has to notify the seller of any breach within a timely manner. The court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the warranty claims, which made up the first two counts.
The court then took a look at Johnston’s negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims. PhD stated Johnston’s allegations do not meet the requirements to show it purposefully misrepresented the product. The court disagreed and stated Johnston proved the details as far as the who, what, where, when, how and why in his amended complaint that showed he depended on the labels when he purchased the products. The court determined Johnston raised the misrepresentation claim properly and did not dismiss.
When it comes to reliance, the court also determined Johnston pleaded that argument sufficiently. While PhD argued the label had a disclaimer, it didn’t state anything about the “researched-back dosing,” based on the court document and did not dismiss this claim.
When it comes to the unjust enrichment claim, PhD challenged whether it had an agreement with the plaintiff. The court determined, “at this stage there is nothing infirm about Johnston pleading unjust enrichment,” according to the court and did not dismiss this argument.
The court lastly addressed PhD’s motion to strike irrelevant portions of the amended complaint as they relate to bodybuilding.com. The defendant states Johnston didn’t buy any items from the website. The court decided it was too early in the case to remove the paragraphs from the case.