North Dallas Honey Company is seeking a dismissal in a case alleging the plaintiffs failed to adequately argue fraudulent misrepresentation or that a false representation was done recklessly. The company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint which was filed earlier this month. The motion said although this is the plaintiffs’ third attempt to plead, there is still no adequate claim for relief stated and the changes requested by the Northern District of Texas were not completed.
“Despite being given the opportunity to replead their claims, and receiving instruction from the Court on the necessary elements of their claims, Plaintiffs’ pleadings still remain wholly deficient. Their claims should be dismissed with prejudice this time,” the motion said. It added that the second amended complaint added facts about what plaintiffs believe to be the proper method for heating honey, consumer preferences for raw honey, and a deficient state-law claim, however, they did not fix legal deficiencies in the previous complaint.
North Dallas Honey Company is represented by Foley & Lardner. The plaintiffs, Marilyn Pierce and Anish Dave, are represented by Kane Russell Coleman & Logan. The plaintiffs alleged the words “Raw” and “100% Pure” on Nature Nate’s honey were misleading because the company heats their honey. Heating honey to more than 105 degrees causes certain enzymes to break down; the plaintiffs said these enzymes are “prized” by consumers of raw honey and heated honey is not considered raw. They claimed Nature’s Nate representatives have said their honey is heated to 120 degrees which the Motion to Dismiss did not deny.
They also alleged that the honey contains syrup, which they say is confirmed by tests, and so it is not 100 percent pure. “If Nature Nate’s actually did the testing it claims, then it would have discovered that its honey was not pure, as it contained a syrup additive. If it made this statement in ignorance, then its claim that it “tests and tests” is false,” the complaint says.
The second amended complaint claimed the defendants know their honey is heated and contains syrup but are marketing the honey as pure and raw to sell the honey at a higher price.
The defendant argued this claim is inaccurate and they ensure the honey is pure. The motion to dismiss claimed the plaintiffs still do not present facts indicating how they relied on the representations of the honey and were injured. It sayid the relief sought in the complaint is really injunctive relief, but it is “masquerading as declaratory relief.”