Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
2014 WL 7247398
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Davidson sues Kimberly-Clark for allegedly false “flushable” advertising of four wipes.
- Plaintiffs claims include CLRA, FAL, UCL, fraud, and unfair/deceptive trade practices.
- Plaintiff alleges the wipes are not truly flushable and may clog sewer systems.
- Plaintiff purchased Scott Naturals Flushable Moist Wipes in 2013 and stopped using them after concerns.
- Defendants removed case to federal court under CAFA and sought dismissal and striking allegations; court previously granted in part/denied in part.
- Plaintiff filed FAC reasserting same four causes of action; court now dismisses for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Plaintiff alleges ongoing injury from future disposal decisions. | Plaintiff lacks intent to purchase future products; injury is conjectural. | Plaintiff lacks standing for prospective injunctive relief. |
| Failure to state CLRA/FAL/UCL claims with specificity | FAC shows reliance on ‘flushable’ labeling and defective dispersal. | Allegations fail to show falsity or causation; omissions insufficiently pled. | FAC fails to state a plausible claim; amended pleadings would be futile. |
| Fraud/omissions pleading adequacy | Omissions contradict the “flushable” representation and are material. | Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing substantial risk of clogging by Kimberly-Clark wipes. | Fraud/omissions claims insufficiently pled under Rule 9(b) and Rule 8. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 503 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (court must ensure subject matter jurisdiction; burden on plaintiff)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (U.S. 2010) (standing and redressability principles; concrete injury)
- Mayfield v. U.S., 599 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (standing; risk of future injury must be actual and imminent)
- GlenFed Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. United States, 42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) (pleading requirements; particularity in fraud allegations)