Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38170
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Belfiore bought Procter & Gamble’s Charmin Freshmates (marketed as “flushable” and “septic safe”) in Great Neck, NY, flushed one-to-two wipes as labeled, and experienced toilet clogging and sewer backup requiring plumber repairs costing $526.83.
- Freshmates are marketed at a premium price compared to non-flushable wipes; plaintiff alleges he paid a premium based on the flushable/septic-safe representations.
- Plaintiff filed a putative New York class action (all New York purchasers within the statute of limitations) asserting violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, seeking monetary relief and a permanent injunction preventing the “flushable” representation.
- Defendant removed to federal court under CAFA and moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing as to injunctive relief; Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a § 349 claim) and to strike class allegations (Rule 12(f)).
- Court denied all three motions: (1) ruled plaintiff has Article III standing to seek injunctive relief despite likely not repurchasing the product; (2) found § 349 causation adequately pleaded; (3) declined to strike class allegations at the pleadings stage (subject to discovery and later certification analysis).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief under Article III | Belfiore says he may seek injunction to stop deceptive labeling even if unlikely to repurchase | P&G contends no standing because plaintiff cannot show a real/immediate threat of future injury | Court: Plaintiff has standing; consumers can seek injunctions to enjoin deceptive labeling even if they avoid repurchase |
| Sufficiency of § 349 pleading (causation/reliance) | Alleged he saw packaging/price, relied on “flushable” claim, paid premium, and suffered economic and plumbing injury | P&G argues plaintiff did not specifically allege he read the misrepresentation before purchase and thus failed to plead causation | Court: Causation sufficiently pleaded; reasonable inference he saw and relied on the packaging; injury alleged (premium and plumbing costs) is adequate |
| Class definition and class allegations | Plaintiff defines class as all NY purchasers within limitations period; alleges common injury (premium paid) | P&G argues class is overbroad (might include uninjured purchasers) and should be stricken | Court: Denied motion to strike; premium-payment theory supplies a common injury shared by the putative class; questions for certification to follow after discovery |
| Rule 12(f) strike standard at pleadings stage | Plaintiff: striking class allegations premature before discovery | P&G: early judicial narrowing appropriate to eliminate overbroad class | Court: Striking class allegations is disfavored; denied without prejudice to renewal post-discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (standing requires likelihood that injury will be redressed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC, 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (assess legal feasibility of complaint on Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Spagnola v. Chubb Corp., 574 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2009) (individualized pleading of causation in consumer claims)
- Dash v. Seagate Tech. (U.S.) Holdings, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 357 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (inference that plaintiff saw misleading packaging can satisfy pleading requirement)
- Abraham v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 2d 222 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (causation as essential element of § 349 claims)
- Koenig v. Boulder Brands, Inc., 995 F. Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (payment of a premium due to misrepresentation is a cognizable injury under § 349)
- Machlan v. Procter & Gamble Co., 77 F. Supp. 3d 954 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (discussing standing to seek injunctive relief in consumer labeling cases)