any misrepresentation by the defendants that induced his purchase. As a result, the court found that the plaintiff could not establish an economic injury sufficient to confer standing. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff ’ s claims for injunctive relief. The court explained that in order to seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of suffering future injury. The court determined that the plaintiff alleged only that he “would like to be able to purchase a Graco Car Seat in the future, but would like to be able to know what the useful life of the product he is purchasing is.” Id. at *25-26. The plaintiff thereby sought equitable relief that would require the defendants “to inform customers of the useful life of the Car Seat at the time of purchase, or shortly thereafter, so that they may decide in an informed manner whether to complete the purchase.” Id. at *26. The court opined that the plaintiff ’ s allegation that he “would like to be able to” purchase another car seat in the future was precisely the type of vague, speculative allegations of future harm that courts have routinely rejected. Id. For these reasons, the court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the injunctive relief claim, and granted the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss in its entirety. In Onaka, et al. v. Shiseido Americas Corp. , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53220 (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2023), the plaintiffs brought a class action against the defendants alleging that beauty products that contained PFAS were falsely marketed under a “clean” and “natural” marketing campaign. The allegations included breach of express and implied warranty, fraud, and violations of the consumer protection laws of California, Ohio, New Jersey, and North Carolina. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss challenging the plaintiffs’ Article III standing due to plaintiffs failing to allege any injury-in-fact because the complaint failed to allege which specific PFAS were present in each of the defendants’ products, that no reasonable consumer would consider all PFAS harmful at any level, and the defendants did not make false representations about the products. The plaintiffs argued that at the pleading stage, they were not required to demonstrate they actually purchased adulterated products, and the single allegation regarding their PFAS testing, when compared to the allegations as a whole, sufficiently showed that the products that the plaintiffs purchased were tested and found to have PFAS. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the presence of PFAS was so widespread across all products at issue that one could conclude that any plaintiff purchased a product that contained PFAS. The court also criticized the studies that the plaintiffs relied on in the complaint because those studies did not conclude that the defendants’ products contain PFAS. Finally, the court reasoned that even if the products did contain PFAS, the complaint did not allege any non-conclusory allegations that plaintiffs suffered an injury due to regularly using and purchased defendants’ products. For these reasons, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In Peeler, et al. v. SRG Global Coatings , LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98192 (E.D. Mo. June 6, 2023), the plaintiff brought a putative class action against defendants alleging that the defendants’ automobile manufacturing plant caused chemicals, including PFAS, to be leaked into the soil and contaminated the groundwater and municipal drinking water. The plaintiff alleged that she, along with others similarly- situated, ingested and was therefore exposed to PFAS between 1987 and 2022. The plaintiff sought damages in excess of $5 million, and brought causes of action for negligence, private nuisance, and strict liability for an ultrahazardous activity. In addition to monetary damages, the plaintiff also sought medical monitoring damages. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the defendant moved to dismiss the strict liability count on the grounds that it failed to state a viable claim. The plaintiff focused her response on defendant ’ s remediation activities as opposed to the manufacturing process that allegedly led to the contamination. The court observed that Missouri case law precedent revealed only 2 cases that found an activity was abnormally dangerous, which involved blasting operations and radioactive nuclear emissions. The court found that the defendant ’ s manufacturing and remediation efforts did not qualify as abnormally dangerous under Missouri law. For these reasons, the court dismissed the strict liability count. In Torres, et al. v. Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. L.P., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26880 (S.D.N.Y. February 16, 2023), the plaintiff brought a class action against the defendants alleging that the defendant ’ s product was not a “diet food,” and alleged economic injury based on upon the defendant ’ s advertisement. Id. at *16. The complaint sought to represent a class of all persons in states other than California or Missouri
12
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Product Liability And Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online