UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ ROBERT GREER, JEFFREY RIEMER, JANE BARKER, │ TUCKER GOODMAN, DOLORES BOWERS, and AMBER │ TURNER, individually and on behalf of themselves and │ all others similarly situated, > No. 23-5589 Plaintiffs-Appellants, │ │ │ v. │ │ STRANGE HONEY FARM, LLC; GARY STRANGE and │ FONDA STRANGE, owners and members; INGLES │ MARKETS, INC.; K-VA-T FOOD STORES, INC., │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. No. 3:20-cv-00262—Katherine A. Crytzer, District Judge.

Argued: June 13, 2024

Decided and Filed: September 6, 2024

Before: COLE, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Matthew G. Norgard, KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants. Gordon Ball, GORDON BALL, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Strange Appellees. Mary C. Moffatt, WIMBERLY, LAWSON, WRIGHT, DAVES & JONES, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Retail Appellees. ON BRIEF: Matthew G. Norgard, Clinton A. Krislov, KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, Kent A. Heitzinger, KENT HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES, Winnetka, Illinois, Al Holifield, HOLIFIELD & JANICH, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Gordon Ball, GORDON BALL, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Strange Appellees. Mary C. Moffatt, WIMBERLY, LAWSON, WRIGHT, DAVES & JONES, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Retail Appellees. No. 23-5589 Greer, et al. v. Strange Honey Farm, et al. Page 2

_________________

OPINION _________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs are consumers who allege Strange Honey made fraudulent claims about its products. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against all but one defendant for pleading fraud-based claims without the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and it then denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. After plaintiffs appealed, the district court formally dismissed the remaining defendant and entered final judgment. At issue is whether we possess jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ appeal, and, if so, whether the district court correctly granted the motions to dismiss and denied the motion for leave to amend. Because we answer both questions in the affirmative, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.

Located in eastern Tennessee, defendant Strange Honey Farm, LLC, produces and distributes honey products. Plaintiffs are members of a putative class of consumers who purchased honey from Strange Honey in Tennessee, Illinois, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Kentucky through certain grocery stores or websites. They allege that Strange Honey fraudulently markets its honey. According to plaintiffs’ conclusory complaint, although the labels on Strange Honey jars describe the honey “a