Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, No. 13-3329 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a putative class action against Bridgestone for violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), 407.020.1 RSMo. Plaintiff alleged that a shop supply fee was for profit, not supplies. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion because the affidavit supporting the motion provided only speculative hope of finding evidence to support her claim; the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Bridgestone summary judgment before ruling on her motion for class certification; the fee was not an unfair or deceptive practice under the MMPA where the undisputed evidence showed that the fee covered costs for a variety of shop supplies; and, in regards to a case for money had and received, the fee was not unjust where the undisputed evidence showed that the fee covered costs for a variety of shop supplies and clearly disclosed that it was intended partly for profit. Accordingly, the court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in granting Bridgestone summary judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. In action alleging an auto "shop supply fee" charge violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion to stay briefing on defendant's summary judgment motion until after merits discovery, as the class discovery the parties had completed revealed relevant information about the shop supply fee and plaintiff failed to show what additional evidence would prove her claim meritorious; the district court may grant summary judgment before ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification; the undisputed evidence shows that the shop supply fee covers costs for a variety of shop supplies and the fee is not, therefore, an unfair or deceptive practice under the Act; plaintiff failed to make a submissible case for money had and received, as the fee charged was not unjust. [ May 12, 2014
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.