Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—E.D. Mich.: Michigan claim valid without allegation that product was used for household purposes, (Nov 14, 2014)

By Edward L. Puzzo, J.D.

A claim made under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act could not be dismissed for failing to specify that the product in question was used for personal, family or household purposes, when such an assertion was implied by the complaint’s plausible factual allegations, the federal district court in Ann Arbor, Michigan has ruled (Jones v. Plow & Hearth Corporation, November 13, 2014, Levy, J.).

Plaintiff Timothy Jones held a patent on a windmill that used light emitting diodes (LEDs) powered by wind energy, entitled an “Illuminated Windmill for Virtual Color Generation.” Defendant Plow & Hearth Corporation sold ornamental yard and garden accessories.

Jones brought a number of claims against Plow & Hearth based on its sale of a product listed as “LED Garden Windmill With Decorative Metal Scrollwork Base” including allegations of violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA).

The MCPA—which applies only to goods, property, or services used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes—deems unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive any method, act, or practice that causes a probability of confusion as to the source, or sponsorship of goods or services.

Personal, family, or household purposes. Plow & Hearth argued that Jones’ complaint failed to state that its decorative windmills were goods used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and thus should be dismissed. The court responded that it could find no instance where a court had dismissed an MCPA claim merely on the basis that the complaint failed to state, verbatim, that the product in question was “used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” Instead, such claims were dismissed only when the complaint alleged a purpose for the product that was not for personal, family, or household purposes, and thus was outside the scope of the MCPA.

Here, the court concluded, since Jones’ complaint adequately described the product as a decorative windmill, and described Plow & Hearth as a seller of ornamental yard and garden accessories, Jones had made sufficient factual assertions to make a plausible claim that these goods were used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Adequacy of pleading. Plow & Hearth also argued that the complaint failed to assert facts giving rise to a MCPA cause of action, and should be dismissed. The court noted that Jones alleged that the sale of the windmill product by Plow & Hearth created a probability of confusion or misunderstanding in the marketplace with his patented windmill product, in violation of the MCPA. “That a complaint is sparse in detail is not fatal to its survival at the motion to dismiss stage, as long as its contents are sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief,” the court stated. Thus the court declined to dismiss the MCPA claim on either basis raised by the defendant.

The case is Civil Action No. 14-cv-13129.

Attorneys: Timothy Jones, pro se. Thomas G. Cardelli (Cardelli Lanfear PC) for Plow & Hearth Corporation.

Companies: Plow & Hearth Corporation.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices MichiganNews