Ferrari v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 48 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the Minnesota Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the Min nesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Plaintiff's First Cause of Action), the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing. 2. To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss all of Plaintiff 's claims for products he did not purchase and advertising he did not see, the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing. Specifically, Plaintiff's claims are limited to televisions w ith the model number NS-65D260A13 and for advertising and marketing on the television box itself. 3. To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief, the motion is DENIED. 4. To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismis s Plaintiff's claims for failure to adequately plead allegations of fraud, the motion is DENIED. 5. To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failing to plausibly allege a price premium injury, the motion is DENIED 16 . (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/12/15. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rick Ferrari, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 14‐2956 (MJD/FLN)

Best Buy Co., Inc.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Shulman and Richard Landon, Gray Plant & Mooty, Counsel for
Plaintiffs. 
Elliot S. Kaplan, Stephen P. Safranski and Katherine S. Barrett Wiik, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Counsel for Defendant. 
___________________________________________________________________
The above‐entitled matter comes before the Court on the parties’ objections
to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated
March 18, 2015 recommending that the Court grant, in part, Defendant’s motion
to dismiss.  
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the
record.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b).  Based on that review, the Court
will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under the
Minnesota Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Prevention of
Consumer Fraud Act, and the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action), the motion is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of standing.

2.

To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims for
products he did not purchase and advertising he did not see, the
motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing. Specifically, Plaintiff’s
claims are limited to televisions with the model number NS‐
65D260A13 and for advertising and marketing on the television box
itself. 

3.

To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive
relief, the motion is DENIED.

4.

To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure
to adequately plead allegations of fraud, the motion is DENIED.
2

5.

To the extent Best Buy seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failing to
plausibly allege a price premium injury, the motion is DENIED.

DATED: 

May 12, 2015

s/ Michael J. Davis                                  
MICHAEL J. DAVIS
Chief Judge
           United States District Court 

3