who purchased the defendant ’ s product. The defendants responded to the complaint with a motion to transfer venue, or to stay or dismiss the case based upon another case previously filed in California. The court denied the motion. Id. at *2. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the defendant moved to dismiss based upon lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff ’ s failure to allege an injury. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims for products which she did not purchase, and failed to assert viable claims under the laws of New York. Initially, the defendant argued the plaintiff did not suffer an injury because she never alleged she used more than the serving size, and thus the diet food did not cause the plaintiff to gain weight. The plaintiff countered that the theory of injury was purchasing a diet product that caused plaintiff to gain weight because and was purchased due to the statements on the label. The defendants additionally argued that they never had any responsibility for the product in question because another entity contractually assumed liability based on plaintiff ’ s claims. The court recognized that the defendant ’ s argument raised a disputed jurisdictional fact and thus looked outside the pleadings to decide the motion. The court found that the defendant submitted affidavits that it had no liability based on contractual provisions, and plaintiff ’ s failed to offer any evidence to the contrary. The court granted the motion on that ground. However, the defendant also argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims for products she did not purchase, but the court quickly disposed of and denied the motion because the plaintiff satisfactorily alleged a substantial similarity between the purchased and non-purchased products. 5. Motions To Strike Class Allegations Motions striking class allegations are sometimes successful when obvious defects are apparent on the face of the pleadings. If a defendant can demonstrate that the class action procedural device is not the superior method to adjudicate the class claims, a court has the authority to strike the class allegations. Generally, though, courts recognize that striking class allegations at the pleading stage is an extreme remedy, and often the class claims are allowed to proceed through discovery and the issues raised in striking the class claims are then dealt with at the class certification stage. In Carr, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86691 (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2023), the plaintiff brought a class against defendants because certain of defendant ’ s shampoo products allegedly caused hair loss to the plaintiff and others similarly-situated. The plaintiff alleged that DMDM hydration, an ingredient, caused the hair loss because it works as a preservative and releases formaldehyde. The plaintiff ’ s complaint relied on and cited to medical and scientific studies over the past few decades. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants knew about the harms associated with DMDM. The plaintiff brought strict liability and negligence claims on behalf of a class of residents in the United States who purchased defendant ’ s products that contained DMDM and suffered “hair loss, thinning hair, or other injuries after using the product….” Id. at *3. The defendants moved to strike the class allegations on the grounds that the plaintiff ’ s claim was highly individualized, given that the medical history, allergies, and skin sensitivities are individualized as to each class member. The defendants also challenged the class definition. The court did not strike the class allegations because even though it may be that the class could not be certified, it would be premature to strike the allegations at the pleading stage. Further, the court noted it was not bound by the class definition as proposed in the complaint, and, even though the plaintiffs may have proposed an impermissible fail-safe class, striking the class definition at the pleading stage was also premature. For these reasons, the court denied the defendant ’ s motion. In Faulhaber, et al. v. Petzl America, Inc. , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24973 (D. Colo. Feb. 14, 2023), the plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the defendants alleging that the defendant ’ s rock climbing products were defective. The complaint stemmed from the plaintiff ’ s use of one of the defendant ’ s products, which while in use, failed and caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of others who used the defendant ’ s rock climbing products that failed. After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the defendant moved to dismiss based upon the plaintiff ’ s failure to state a claim under Colorado ’ s products liability statute because the plaintiff failed to plead a “lack of misuse,” and also
13
© 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