Not Enough Meat on Case Against McDonald's Quarter Pounder, Court Rules
The court slapped down a South Florida couple's putative class action lawsuit, which sought $5 million in damages and claimed McDonald's was wrong to force diners to pay for cheese on Quarter Pounder and Double Quarter Pounder burgers, whether or not they wanted it.
November 05, 2018 at 03:17 PM
3 minute read
South Floridians Cynthia E. Kissner and Leonard Werner had hoped to bring a $5 million class action lawsuit against Delaware-based McDonald's Corp. over its ”unfair” and “deceptive” cheese surcharge on Quarter Pounder and Double Quarter Pounder burgers.
But the court didn't bite.
The case lacked a solid basis, according to U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas in the Southern District of Florida, who dismissed the claims with prejudice.
The couple's “unwanted cheese vexation,” as Dimitrouleas called it, reached sizzling heights in May, prompting a putative class action lawsuit alleging unjust enrichment and a violation of antitrust laws.
According to the complaint, charging between 30 and 90 cents extra for cheese was “unfair” to diners, who weren't given the option of buying burgers without it.
The lawsuit claimed all McDonald's restaurants used to allow customers to pay less for a cheese-free Quarter Pounder, but then some franchises scrapped that measure to become a few million dollars richer. It claimed this was an illegal “tying arrangement,” a tactic used to force customers into buying one product tied to another.
But Dimitrouleas disagreed.
“Plaintiffs' attempt to fit a hamburger with cheese into these required elements is absurd and fails,” the court order said.
Related story: Miami Attorney Files Class Action Against McDonald's Over Quarter-Pounder Cheese
Kissner and Werner had sought damages plus attorney fees and court costs, while McDonald's moved to dismiss the suit, claiming the plaintiffs lacked standing as they'd suffered no injuries.
Dimitrouleas also agreed with McDonald's on its claim that there was nothing deceptive about its Quarter Pounder sales. He branded the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment allegations “nonsensical.”
The court provided additional food for thought, noting that even if the plaintiffs had made a strong unjust enrichment claim, the case would have been barred under Florida's voluntary payment doctrine, which states that if customers knowingly paid extra, they have no grounds for a lawsuit.
McDonald's laywer, Craig D. Mills of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Philadelphia, declined to comment on the case.
Kissner and Werner's attorney, Andrew T. Lavin of the Lavin Law Group in Miami, did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
Read the full court order:
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute read
Miami Law's Class Action Forum to Feature Judges, New Rules, and Insights on MDL Practice
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 12025 Starting Line-Up: Meet Georgia's Newest Magistrate Court Judges
- 2Delaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete
- 3‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
- 4'Never Been More Dynamic': Big Law Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
- 5Pa. 100: Law Schools
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
