Trickeration, Inc. dba Donegal Bay v. JAG Alliance, LLC dba CBD Hemp Experts

Trickeration · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · December 1, 2025 · No. 1:25CV00500

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio considers Defendant JAG Alliance, LLC’s partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff Trickeration, Inc.’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court concludes that Plaintiff failed to plead reliance and resulting injury with sufficient factual specificity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and grants the motion. The underlying dispute concerns delayed and allegedly incomplete deliveries of lotion products, a prepaid deposit, and Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff failed to state a fraudulent-misrepresentation claim because it did not allege facts showing that it relied on the specifically identified April 13, 2023 representation or suffered injury resulting from reliance on that representation.
  2. Plaintiff did not plead its alleged fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) because its broad allegations did not identify the time, place, or speaker of the alleged representations, apart from the inadequately pleaded April 13 statement.
  3. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees was dismissed because Plaintiff acknowledged that the request was premised entirely on its deficient fraud claim.
  4. Plaintiff was not entitled to leave to amend based on a barebones request in its opposition brief without a proposed amended complaint or an explanation of how amendment would cure the pleading defects.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation under Ohio or Florida law.
  2. Whether Plaintiff's fraud allegations satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
  3. Whether Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees survived dismissal when it was premised entirely on the fraud claim.
  4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to leave to amend based on a cursory request in its opposition brief.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (34)

  • Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Nathaniel Brent v. Wayne Cty. Dep't of Human Servs., Brent v. Wayne County Dep't of Human Services, 901 F.3d 656, 694 (6th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-556 (2007)(followed)
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009)(followed)
  • Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007)(followed)
  • Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555, 562 n.4 (6th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Burr v. Stark County Bd. of Comm'rs, 491 N.E.2d 1101, 1102 (Ohio 1986)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 34.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…