Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, RICO—D. Mass.: Cannabis labs’ claims over allegedly defective PerkinElmer testing instruments dismissed, (May 14, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

PerkinElmer and others allegedly fraudulently sold defective cannabis-testing instruments to cannabis testing labs as turnkey, validated, and regulatory-compliant.

The federal district court in Boston, Massachusetts dismissed civil RICO claim alleging a fraudulent scheme involving PerkinElmer cannabis-testing instruments, holding that the complaint failed to plead a RICO enterprise. The court found that the allegations against the defaulting defendants, Juniper Analytics, LLC, and Emerald Scientific, LLC, showed, at most, business relationships and promotional activity, not participation in directing a common fraudulent enterprise. It also dismissed numerous fraud, consumer-protection, warranty, and misrepresentation claims on grounds including failure to plead fraud with Rule 9(b) particularity, lack of a Massachusetts “center of gravity” for most Chapter 93A claims, and statutes of limitations. The court denied leave to amend, dismissed the affected claims with prejudice, and remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court (Assured Testing Laboratories LLC v. Perkinelmer Health Sciences, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-12336-BEM (D. Mass. May 13, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiffs include 39 cannabis testing laboratories operating across the United States and Canada, as well as one lab landlord and one lab vendor. The complaint named 36 defendants, including 30 PerkinElmer-related defendants, three New Mountain defendants, Frank Whitney, and the two defaulting defendants, Juniper Analytics, LLC, and Emerald Scientific, LLC.

Plaintiffs allege that PerkinElmer Health Sciences sold cannabis-testing laboratories a range of analytical instruments—including QSight, Clarus, Flexar/LC300, and NexION systems—while falsely representing that the instruments were implementation-ready, “turnkey,” and supported by validated standard operating procedures. The lab plaintiffs and one landlord plaintiff alleged that they purchased the instruments between 2017 and 2022 based on those representations, but then experienced recurring problems with shipping, installation, training, support, and instrument performance. They further alleged that PerkinElmer knew as early as 2019 that its claims were false, concealed the instruments’ deficiencies by blaming “operator error” and denying similar customer complaints, and that plaintiffs discovered the alleged concealment only after reviewing public litigation records in 2024.

After PerkinElmer’s 2023 transaction and rebranding, New Mountain allegedly acquired or controlled business operations connected to the instruments through PerkinElmer U.S. and related entities. Juniper Analytics allegedly collaborated with PerkinElmer on method development, received payments and free instrumentation, served as a reference laboratory, and promoted the testing solutions despite knowing of SOP problems. Emerald Scientific allegedly promoted and sold the instruments and SOP packages as turnkey, validated, and regulatory-compliant, including through conferences, webinars, and a partnership with PerkinElmer.

Twenty-six plaintiffs initially filed the case in state court against PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Revvity Health Sciences, and PerkinElmer U.S. After the complaint was amended to add a federal RICO claim and numerous additional defendants, the defendants removed the action to federal court in August 2025. Plaintiffs later filed a second amended complaint, adding more plaintiffs and factual allegations. The PerkinElmer defendants and the New Mountain defendants then moved to dismiss various claims, and the court heard argument in April 2026 before taking the motions under advisement.

RICO claim. The court held that the complaint failed to plead a RICO enterprise because it did not plausibly allege that the defendants associated together for a common illegal purpose, rather than pursuing ordinary business relationships or their own corporate affairs. Although Juniper and Emerald had defaulted, the court explained that their defaults did not bind the non-defaulting defendants or establish that the complaint adequately pleaded a RICO enterprise. The allegations that Juniper helped develop SOPs and promoted PerkinElmer’s instruments, and that Emerald promoted and sold the instruments, showed at most knowledge of product problems and marketing relationships with PerkinElmer, not that either entity operated, managed, or shared control of a fraudulent enterprise.

The court also found the allegations deficient as to the remaining defendants. Without Juniper and Emerald, the alleged enterprise consisted mainly of related corporate entities, employees, affiliates, and agents. The court rejected the theory that PerkinElmer U.S. and the New Mountain defendants formed a continuing RICO enterprise with PerkinElmer Health Sciences because the complaint alleged that PerkinElmer Health Sciences had wound down its cannabis business before those later entities became involved. The court further held that a corporation and its employees or affiliates cannot, without more, constitute the distinct RICO enterprise required under Section 1962(c). Because the complaint failed to plead a continuing unit with a common fraudulent purpose, the court dismissed the RICO claim in full, including against the defaulting defendants.

Rule 9(b). The court held that 26 plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). The plaintiffs argued that they could plead fraud by category and role, but the court rejected that position, explaining that Rule 9(b) requires details about the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “when” of the alleged fraud. The court found that many allegations described only general representations that PerkinElmer’s instruments and SOPs were turnkey, compliant, or “plug and play,” without identifying where or when the statements were made or which representative made each statement. As a result, the court dismissed the affected plaintiffs’ claims under the RICO, fraudulent-inducement, Chapter 93A, and consumer-protection counts.

Consumer protection claims. The court dismissed most Chapter 93A claims because, except for Assured Testing, the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the challenged conduct occurred “primarily and substantially” in Massachusetts. The court found that the complaint mostly alleged a nationwide sales and marketing scheme, sales to laboratories outside Massachusetts, and injuries suffered outside Massachusetts. References to PerkinElmer’s Massachusetts headquarters, Massachusetts-based employees, or Massachusetts regulatory standards were not enough to make Massachusetts the center of gravity of the claims. The court also dismissed claims brought under Connecticut, Maine, Ontario, British Columbia, and Texas consumer-protection laws, accepting the PerkinElmer defendants’ arguments and rejecting the plaintiffs’ assertion that those issues were premature.

Statute of limitations. The court held that many plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. The plaintiffs argued that they did not discover the alleged fraud until 2024, when they reviewed public filings in other lawsuits against PerkinElmer. The court rejected that theory because the complaint itself alleged that many plaintiffs experienced instrument or SOP problems soon after installation, often years earlier. Those performance problems gave the plaintiffs enough notice to investigate their potential claims. The court also rejected fraudulent-concealment tolling because the complaint did not plead concealment with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and because the alleged early performance failures put plaintiffs on notice that something was wrong. The court therefore dismissed numerous RICO, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, warranty, Chapter 93A, and consumer-protection claims as untimely.

Remaining arguments. The court also dismissed all claims by First THC Company and the Green Analytics plaintiffs. It found that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show that those entities themselves purchased instruments, received misrepresentations, or otherwise had viable claims. The plaintiffs’ assertion that First THC shared a claim with Bluebonnet, or that the Green Analytics laboratories were sold collectively, was not sufficiently pleaded in the complaint. Because the court had already dismissed all claims by American Biotech Testing and American Biotech Laboratories, it did not reach the PerkinElmer defendants’ res judicata arguments as to those entities.

New Mountain defendants’ motion. Because the complaint asserted only the RICO claim against the New Mountain defendants, the court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to plead a RICO enterprise disposed of the claim against them. The court therefore dismissed Count I as to the New Mountain defendants without reaching their remaining dismissal arguments.

Leave to amend. The court denied a request for leave to amend, noting that they had already amended the complaint twice and had undergone two rounds of dismissal briefing, including an earlier round in state court. The court found that the plaintiffs had ample notice of the alleged pleading deficiencies and opportunities to cure them, so the liberal amendment standard gave way to finality. The court also emphasized that the plaintiffs did not file a separate motion to amend, did not submit a proposed amended complaint, and did not explain what new allegations would cure the defects. Accordingly, the court denied leave to amend.

Remand. The court remanded the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, the RICO count. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims addressed in the motions to dismiss because those issues had already been fully briefed and argued and did not present novel or substantial state-law questions. But for the remaining state-law claims not addressed by the motions, the court found this was the usual case in which federal jurisdiction should not continue once all federal claims had been eliminated before trial. Because the case was still at an early stage and no court had yet reviewed those remaining claims, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favored remand to the state court.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-12336-BEM.

Judge: Murphy, B.

Attorneys: Lindsey Mccomber (Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC) for Assured Testing Laboratories LLC. Elizabeth A. Alquist (Day Pitney LLP) for Perkinelmer Health Sciences, Inc.

Companies: Assured Testing Laboratories LLC; Plant Safe, LLC; Evio, Inc.; Nature Safe Labs, Inc.; Pride Analytics and Consulting LLC; NCALC, LLC d/b/a The Higher Commitment Analytical; High Sierra Analytics, Inc.; 2 River Labs; American Biotech Testing, Inc.; American Biotech Laboratories, Inc.; SC Laboratories Oregon LLC; SC Laboratories California, LLC; CB Labs Novato, LLC; CB Labs Santa Ana, LLC; CanMedLabs LLC; Enve Analytics LLC; Indicative-Testing LLC; Aries Analytic LLC; Agricor Laboratories MI, Inc. f/k/a Cann-Lab LLC; The Spott Laboratory; Scepter Lab LLC; Higher Testing, LLC; Jasper Analytical Laboratory, LLC; Rose City Laboratories LLC; Pinnacle Analytics, LLC; Bluebonnet Labs, LLC; First THC Company LLC; High North, Inc.; Ontario Inc.; Pura Analytical Labs; Green Analytics MD, LLC; Green Analytics NY, LLC; Green Analytics WV, LLC; Green Analytics MA, LLC; OK Analytical; Certified Testing & Data, LLC; Delta9 Labs, LLC; Nascient, LLC; Nascient I, LLC; Vassar Acquisitions Property Management, LLC; Tagleaf, Inc.; PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc.; Revvity Health Sciences, Inc.; PerkinElmer U.S. LLC; New Mountain Capital, LLC; New Mountain Partners VI, LP; PerkinElmer Topco, L.L.C.; Juniper Analytics, LLC; Emerald Scientific, LLC

Cases: Advertising RICO StateUnfairTradePractices MassachusettsNews