Food for Thought: Summary Judgment for Tito’s Vodka Makers in Case Alleging Their Product is Not Made in an Old-Fashioned Pot Still

Pye v. Fifth Generation, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv493-RH/CAS (N.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2016)
09.27.2016

Plaintiffs Shalinus Pye and Raisha Licht filed a lawsuit against defendants Fifth Generation, Inc. and Mockingbird Distillery Corporation alleging they purchased Tito’s Handmade Vodka in reliance on defendants’ statement on the label that Tito’s is "handmade" and made in "an old-fashioned pot still." Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Florida buyers of Tito’s. The first amended complaint which asserted claims based on breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and violations of Florida’s bait-and-switch advertising statutes.

In September 2015, the district court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for the breach of express warranty claim. However, the court’s order dismissing five of the six claims also limited the express warranty claim. Specifically, the court held that the plaintiffs could not recover based on the statement that Tito’s is "handmade," and allowed the case to proceed only as to the statement that Tito’s is made in "an old-fashioned pot still."

The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the one remaining claim in the case. The court held that the undisputed evidence established that Tito’s was indeed made in "an old-fashioned pot still." Plaintiffs argued that the pot still was not truly "old-fashioned" because anything that has been changed cannot truly be "old-fashioned." However, the court declined to give the term such a narrow definition and explained that "the assertion [that anything that has been changed cannot be, ‘old-fashioned,’] assigns to the term a meaning far more precise and restricted than the term ordinarily bears."

In addition, pursuant to Florida law, a prerequisite to an express warranty claim is notice to the manufacturer of the breach. The court explained that plaintiffs’ express warranty claim survived the motion to dismiss because they alleged they did provide the required notice. However, plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motion failed to provide evidence supporting the allegation. On the other hand, defendants submitted evidence that they did not receive notice. According to the court, defendants would be entitled to summary judgment on this basis alone.

Throughout, the court cited plaintiffs’ failure to provide evidence supporting their allegations. Specifically, the court noted that defendants provided ample evidence in support of their arguments and "rigorously cited the record for every fact on which they rely." By comparison, the court explained plaintiffs’ response "cites the record only for the wording on the Tito’s label" and "cited no record support for their other factual assertions" because "there is no record support for the assertions." As a result, defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

©2017 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.