Erickson v. Board of County Commissioners of Delta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “to the extent that [p]laintiffs’ other claims succeed, the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative, and if plaintiffs’ other claims are defective, an unjust enrichment claim cannot remedy the defects” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that nothing in the applicable federal laws at issue in the case \expressly preempts state law claims for deceptive practices premised on an alleged failure to follow federal food labeling requirements\
• holding under New York law that, where “Plaintiffs claim that they purchased Smart Balance because of Defendants’ purported misrepresentations,” “if [their] other claims are defective, an unjust enrichment claim cannot remedy the defects”
• finding a sufficiently-pled section 349 injury where the plaintiffs alleged that they paid price premiums based on the defendants’ misrepresentations without identifying a specific comparable product
• finding a sufficiently-pled section 349 injury where the plaintiffs alleged that they paid price premiums based on the defendants' misrepresentations without identifying a specific comparable product
• finding that a label advertising a product’s “Fat Free Milk” could have misled consumers into thinking that the product was fat free, even though the label also advertised the product’s “omega-3s” and its fat in the omega-3 oil blend

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).