MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Christa Robey, has filed an amended putative class action complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against the defendant, PVH Corporation (“PVH”), asserting claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“NJTCCWNA”), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law, in connection with her purchase of two items at a Tommy Hilfiger store owned and operated by the defendant, PVH Corporation.1 The plaintiff claims the defendant engaged in a deceptive sales price practice, whereby sales tags, signs, and receipts presented customers with a sale price and an allegedly fictious reference price, to induce the customer into believing they had received a bargain. The defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. I. When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in a plaintiff’s favor. See McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court’s function on a motion to dismiss is “not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient.” Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985).2 The Court should not dismiss the complaint if a plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While the Court should construe factual allegations in the light most favorable to a plaintiff on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. When presented with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint, documents that a plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff’s possession or that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002). In federal court, claims “that sound in fraud must meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b),” by stating with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud. Twersky v. Yeshiva Univ., 993 F. Supp. 2d 429, 433 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d 579 F. App’x 7 (2d Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). A claim charging fraud should “(1) specify the statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent, (2) identify the speaker, (3) state where and when the statements were made, and (4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.” ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 99 (2d Cir. 2007). Further, a plaintiff must “plead those events which give rise to a strong inference that the defendant had an intent to defraud, knowledge of the falsity, or a reckless disregard for the truth.” Caputo v. Pfizer, Inc., 267 F.3d 181, 191 (2d Cir. 2001). II. A. The following allegations are accepted as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff is an individual and a citizen of New Jersey. Am. Compl. 17. The defendant PVH Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and primary offices located in New York. Id. 20. The defendant owns and operates eight Tommy Hilfiger outlet stores in New Jersey. Id. 21 The defendant’s products are also sold by certain third-party retail companies, both in their New Jersey stores and online. Id.
49-50. On or about October 20, 2019, Robey visited a Tommy Hilfiger store, owned and operated by the defendant, at the Gloucester Premium Outlets in Blackwood, New Jersey (the “Tommy Hilfiger store”). Id. 76. During the visit, she observed a sign in the front window that read “UP TO 60 percent off entire store.” Id., Ex. I. Robey purchased two items: a pair of sunglasses and a wallet. The sunglasses had a tag noting a “PROMO PRICE” of $2 9.40, which the tag represented was a 4 0 percent discount from the reference price of $49.00. Id. 80-82 & Exs. A, D. Robey purchased the wallet at a “PROMO PRICE” of $26.99, discounted in the amount of 40 percent from the reference price of $44.99. Id.
