ROBERT GREER, JEFFREY RIEMER, JANE BARKER, TUCKER GOODMAN, DOLORES BOWERS, and AMBER TURNER, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STRANGE HONEY FARM, LLC; GARY STRANGE and FONDA STRANGE, owners and members; INGLES MARKETS, INC.; K-VA-T FOOD STORES, INC. - Articles

All Content

ROBERT GREER, JEFFREY RIEMER, JANE BARKER, TUCKER GOODMAN, DOLORES BOWERS, and AMBER TURNER, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STRANGE HONEY FARM, LLC; GARY STRANGE and FONDA STRANGE, owners and members; INGLES MARKETS, INC.; K-VA-T FOOD STORES, INC.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Sep 6, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Matthew G. Norgard, KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Gordon Ball, GORDON BALL, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Strange Appellees. Mary C. Moffatt, WIMBERLY, LAWSON, WRIGHT, DAVES & JONES, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Retail Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Matthew G. Norgard, Clinton A. Krislov, KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, Kent A. Heitzinger, KENT HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES, Winnetka, Illinois, Al Holifield, HOLIFIELD & JANICH, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Gordon Ball, GORDON BALL, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Strange Appellees. Mary C. Moffatt, WIMBERLY, LAWSON, WRIGHT, DAVES & JONES, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Retail Appellees.

Judge(s): COLE, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are consumers who allege Strange Honey made fraudulent claims about its products. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against all but one defendant for pleading fraud-based claims without the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and it then denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. After plaintiffs appealed, the district court formally dismissed the remaining defendant and entered final judgment. At issue is whether we possess jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ appeal, and, if so, whether the district court correctly granted the motions to dismiss and denied the motion for leave to amend. Because we answer both questions in the affirmative, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Attachments: