ARLANDSON v. Hartz Mountain Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56462
| D.N.J. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs sue Hartz Mountain Corp., Sergeant's Pet Care Products, and Summit Vetpharm for harm from over-the-counter spot-on flea and tick products containing Pyrethrin or derivatives.
- Products are applied topically to pets and allegedly unsafe, causing pet illness or death.
- EPA issued a May 5, 2009 advisory and HSUS comments in 2009 regarding these products' safety; Plaintiffs reference these in support.
- 28 named Plaintiffs across multiple states assert four causes of action against the Defendants: breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, NJCFA, and unjust enrichment.
- Plaintiffs seek economic damages measured as the difference between what they paid and the diminished value of the product, and seek to certify a putative class.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2); the court resolves jurisdiction and choice-of-law issues as part of the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIFRA preemption of claims | Plaintiffs argue NJCFA and related claims are not labeling requirements. | Defendants contend claims tied to labeling would be preempted. | Not all claims preempted; NJCFA claim may be preempted, but other claims survive at this stage. |
| Personal jurisdiction over Sergeant's | Plaintiffs show purposeful availment and contacts with NJ, supporting specific jurisdiction. | Sergeant's has no general or specific NJ contacts for all Plaintiffs. | Court has specific jurisdiction over Sergeant's for this action. |
| Choice of law for non-NJPLA claims | Different states' laws apply; most significant relationship should govern per Restatement §6. | NJ law should govern due to NJHQ and FIFRA interplay. | Apply home-state law for each plaintiff's non-NJPLA claims; NJ law governs NJPLA subsumption where applicable. |
| Breach of express warranty pleading | Plaintiffs allege express warranties were made and breached. | Plaintiffs fail to specify the actual language or source of warranties. | Count Two dismissed without prejudice for lack of specificity; amendment allowed. |
| NJCFA claim vs. home-state laws; Rule 9(b) pleading | NJCFA claims should be evaluated under plaintiffs' home-state laws. | Home-state NJCFA applies; pleading must meet Rule 9(b). | Count Three dismissed as subsumed by NJPLA for NJ plaintiffs and Rule 9(b) deficiencies; potential amendment allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences L.L.C., 544 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2005) (FIFRA labeling preemption framework; labeling rules not to be read as designing safety standards)
- Indian Brand Farms, Inc. v. Novartis Crop Prot., Inc., 617 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2010) (FIFRA preemption and marketing materials not labeling)
- Repola v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 934 F.2d 483 (3d Cir. 1991) (NJPLA-related product-harm claims under conflict of laws)
- Cooper v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 374 Fed.Appx. 250 (3d Cir. 2010) (Choice-of-law/claims involving home-state interests; not precedential)
- In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 338 F.Supp.2d 517 (D.N.J. 2004) (Choice-of-law analysis in contract/antitrust context; bilateral factors)
- In re Toshiba Am. HD DVD Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 2940081 (D.N.J. 2009) (Implied warranty and merchantability standards under UCC; preemption not automatic)