Assured Testing Laboratories LLC, et al. v. PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considers defendants’ motions to dismiss claims arising from the alleged fraudulent marketing and sale of cannabis-testing laboratory instruments. The court dismisses the civil RICO claim for failure to plausibly plead a RICO enterprise and grants the motions to dismiss, remanding the remaining claims to state court.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to plausibly allege the enterprise element of a civil RICO claim, so Count I was dismissed as to all Defendants, including the defaulting defendants.
2. The defaults of Juniper and Emerald did not bind the remaining Defendants or establish the sufficiency of the RICO allegations.
3. The specified plaintiffs failed to plead their RICO, fraudulent-inducement, Chapter 93A, and state consumer-protection claims with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).
4. All Chapter 93A claims other than those of Assured Testing Laboratories were dismissed because the complaint did not allege that the challenged conduct occurred primarily and substantially in Massachusetts.
5. Specified claims were time-barred, and the complaint did not adequately plead either delayed discovery or fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the limitations periods.
6. Leave to amend was denied because Plaintiffs had already amended twice, had prior notice of the pleading deficiencies, and did not explain how another amendment would cure them.
7. After dismissing the federal RICO claim and adjudicating the state-law claims challenged in the motions, the court remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a RICO enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
2. Whether the fraud-based RICO, fraudulent-inducement, Chapter 93A, and state consumer-protection claims satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
3. Whether the non-Assured Testing Chapter 93A claims alleged deceptive conduct occurring primarily and substantially in Massachusetts.
4. Whether statutes of limitations barred specified claims and whether the discovery rule or fraudulent-concealment doctrine tolled those limitations periods.
5. Whether claims by certain plaintiffs lacking individualized factual allegations stated a claim.
6. Whether the court should grant leave to amend or remand the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Disposition

other