Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180309_0000139.WMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:40:34+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Dean v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Dean v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Defendants.
DAVID P. RUSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 64) filed by Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”). Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, AHM moves the Court to dismiss Count VI of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint against it. Plaintiffs George Dean and Bradley Dean have filed Suggestions in Opposition (Doc. 69) to the motion to dismiss, and AHM has filed a Reply in Support (Doc. 71) of the motion to dismiss. Upon review, the motion to dismiss will be GRANTED.
This action arises from a fire at the residence of George Dean. Plaintiffs allege the fire was caused by a Honda HR-V motor vehicle (the “HR-V”) owned by George Dean and designed, manufactured, marketed and sold by Defendants, and resulted in damage to or destruction of Plaintiffs' personal and real property. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 55) (the “complaint”), which added Count VI for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) against all Defendants.
AHM now moves to dismiss Count VI against it, arguing this claim: (1) fails to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b); (2) fails to identify any specific unlawful act in violation of the MMPA committed by AHM; and (3) fails as a matter of law to the extent it is alleged by Plaintiff Bradley Dean.
Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a claim may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim should be dismissed if it offers only “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. Stated differently, a plaintiff must allege “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id.
Additionally, claims alleging fraud must comply with the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), which requires setting forth “the circumstances constituting fraud ... with particularity.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The “circumstances” of fraud include “such matters as the time, place and contents of false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what was obtained or given up thereby.” Commercial Prop. Inv., Inc. v. Quality Inns Int'l, Inc., 61 F.3d 639, 644 (8th Cir. 1995). In other words, the claim must identify the “who, what, where, when, and how” of the alleged fraud. United States ex rel. Costner v. URS Consultants, Inc., 317 F.3d 883, 888 (8th Cir. 2003).
To prevail on an MMPA claim, a plaintiff must establish that he or she: (1) purchased merchandise; (2) for personal, family, or household purposes; and (3) suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property; (4) as a result of an act declared unlawful by Section 407.020. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.025.1; Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A., 220 S.W.3d 758, 773 (Mo. banc 2007). Acts declared unlawful by the MMPA broadly include “deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce[.]” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020.1. Generally, the “heightened pleading requirement of Rule 9(b) applies to a claim under a state consumer fraud statute, such as the MMPA.” Hays v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00353-BCW, 2017 WL 6816748 at *3 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 27, 2017) (citing Blake v. Career Educ. Corp., 2009 WL 140742 at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 20, 2009)).
Thus, as argued by Plaintiffs, their claim does not specifically allege fraud. Rather, it alleges several other unfair practices declared unlawful under the MMPA, including the “concealment, omissions, and/or suppression of material facts.” However, even if the heightened standard of Rule 9(b) does not apply, AHM argues that Plaintiffs have failed to identify any specific unlawful act committed by it in violation of the MMPA.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 407
 v. 
 § 407
 v. 
 v.