BOSTON (LN) — A federal judge in Boston dismissed a multi-plaintiff commercial fraud lawsuit against PerkinElmer Health Sciences and its successors, ruling that the cannabis testing laboratories failed to plead a coherent RICO enterprise and did not provide the particularized details required for fraud claims.

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy granted the motions to dismiss filed by PerkinElmer Health Sciences, Inc. (now Revvity Health Sciences, Inc.), PerkinElmer U.S. LLC, and New Mountain Capital affiliates, leaving only the claims of Assured Testing Laboratories LLC and Green Analytics MA, LLC to proceed on state law grounds.

The plaintiffs, a group of 39 cannabis testing laboratories and related entities, alleged that PerkinElmer and its partners engaged in a conspiracy to defraud them by selling allegedly defective lab instruments—such as the QSight LC-MS/MS and Clarus GC-MS—as fully "turnkey" solutions with validated standard operating procedures.

The court concluded the plaintiffs' RICO enterprise theory was legally insufficient. Judge Murphy wrote that the allegations against third-party collaborators Juniper Analytics and Emerald Scientific failed to show they operated or managed the enterprise, noting that "innocent desire to make money cannot constitute a common purpose under RICO."

The court further rejected the attempt to link PerkinElmer’s original cannabis division with its successor entities, PE-US and the New Mountain Defendants, because the original division had "abruptly shuttered" entities began their involvement.

"Put simply, an enterprise cannot be considered 'ongoing' or a 'continuing unit' where its members are wholly replaced by new entities that merely fail to remedy earlier alleged fraud," Murphy wrote.

The judge also struck down the fraud claims of 26 plaintiffs for failing to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened particularity standard. The court found that many plaintiffs offered only vague allegations about when and where misrepresentations were made, such as one plaintiff who alleged only that a defendant made "a series of written and verbal representations" without specifying the time or place.

Murphy rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they could plead fraud "by category and role," stating that such an approach "directly contradicts the requirements and purposes of Rule 9(b)."

The court also dismissed Chapter 93A claims for most plaintiffs, ruling that the "center of gravity" of the alleged deceptive conduct was not primarily in Massachusetts. The judge noted that while PerkinElmer is headquartered in Massachusetts, the sales and reliance occurred in other states, and the complaint lacked specific allegations that deceptive acts occurred in the Commonwealth.

Additionally, the court ruled that many claims were time-barred under the discovery rule, finding that plaintiffs had alleged they noticed instrument issues "from the beginning" of installation, which should have triggered an investigation long before they discovered the alleged fraud through public litigation records in 2024.

The judge denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend a third time, citing "undue delay" and the fact that the plaintiffs had already amended their complaint twice over 15 months without explaining how a new version would cure the deficiencies.

The remaining state law claims not addressed in the dismissal were remanded to state court.

The case is now remanded to state court for further proceedings.