Fitzpatrick v. Lens.com, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Nevada · December 31, 2024 · No. 2:24-cv-02203-JAD-EJY

Summary

This document is a federal district court order ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging hidden fees violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court denied the motion to dismiss on the substantive claims but struck the prayer for injunctive relief due to the plaintiff's lack of Article III standing, granting her leave to amend her complaint by January 21, 2025.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Jennifet A. Dorsey
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Decision date
December 31, 2024
Docket number
2:24-cv-02203-JAD-EJY
Procedural posture
motion to dismiss
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

deceptive trade practicesconsumer protectionmotions to dismissstandinginjunctions

Practice areas

consumer protectioncivil procedurecommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the website’s choice‑of‑law clause bars the Illinois consumer‑fraud claim.
  2. Whether the complaint states a plausible deceptive‑practice claim under the ICFA.
  3. Whether the plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief.
  4. Whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient actual damages.

Holdings

  1. The choice‑of‑law clause is not enforceable; the motion to dismiss on that basis is denied.
  2. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible deceptive‑practice claim; the motion to dismiss on that ground is denied.
  3. Plaintiff lacks personal standing for injunctive relief; the request for injunctive relief is struck.
  4. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient actual damages; the motion to dismiss on that ground is denied.

Key quotations

I strike her prayer for injunctive relief because Fitzpatrick has not established that she personally has standing to request that remedy. (970)
Because Fitzpatrick has alleged sufficient facts to support her deceptive‑practices claim and Lens.com has not shown that it is precluded under the applicable choice‑of‑law rules, I deny the motion to dismiss. (970)

Factual background

Plaintiff purchased contact lenses on Lens.com’s website on September 19, 2022, paying $416.04 after a hidden processing fee of $102.96 was added at checkout. She alleges the fee was concealed and deceptive under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Procedural history

The case was originally filed in Illinois state court, removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and transferred to the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). Lens.com moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Remand instructions

Plaintiff may amend the complaint by January 21, 2025 to allege facts supporting standing for injunctive relief.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…