Background - Plaintiff Jennifer Davidson bought Kimberly-Clark-branded pre-moistened wipes labeled "flushable" and paid a premium price, alleging the wipes did not disperse like toilet paper and thus were not truly "flushable." - Davidson stopped using the wipes after personally observing they remained intact in the toilet bowl and after researching reports of wipes clogging plumbing and municipal sewer systems. - She filed a putative class action under California law (common law fraud, CLRA, FAL, UCL) seeking restitution, damages, and an injunction barring the "flushable" labeling. - The district court dismissed the First Amended Complaint (FAC): (1) for failure to plead fraud with particularity (Rule 9(b)), (2) for failing to allege damages, and (3) for lack of Article III standing to seek injunctive relief because she allegedly would not repurchase the product. - The Ninth Circuit reversed: it held the FAC adequately pleaded why the "flushable" representation was false, pleaded economic injury (payment of a premium), and that Davidson had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief based on a threatened future informational injury (inability to rely on labeling). ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether FAC pleaded why "flushable" was false (Rule 9(b)) | Davidson alleged wipes do not disperse within seconds/minutes, cited her own observations and Kimberly-Clark testing; this shows the label is false | Kimberly-Clark said plaintiff must allege actual plumbing/sewer damage to show falsity | Held: FAC sufficiently pleaded why the "flushable" claim was false (satisfied 9(b)) | | Whether Davidson alleged cognizable harm/damages | She paid a premium because of the "flushable" label and would not have bought (or would have paid less) absent misrepresentation | Kimberly-Clark contended no damages because plaintiff did not allege plumbing/septic damage from use | Held: Economic injury (overpayment) suffices under California law to plead damages | | Whether dismissal of original complaint for not alleging "how she came to believe wipes were not flushable" was proper | Davidson said no such particularized showing is required beyond Rule 9(b) elements and her pleaded observations | Kimberly-Clark defended the district court's focus on plaintiff's personal experience allegations | Held: District court erred in requiring an additional allegation about "how she came to believe" beyond Rule 9(b) pleading requirements | | Whether a previously deceived consumer has Article III standing to seek injunctive relief | Davidson: inability to rely on the label in future and desire to purchase truly flushable wipes creates an imminent informational injury and redressability via injunction | Kimberly-Clark: once aware of misrepresentation, plaintiff cannot be deceived again and thus lacks standing to seek injunction | Held: A previously deceived consumer may have standing to seek injunction; Davidson alleged a certainly impending informational injury and satisfied redressability | ### Key Cases Cited Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury-in-fact, causation, redressability) City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (prospective injunctive relief requires likelihood of repeated injury) Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (allegations of possible future injury are insufficient; threatened injury must be certainly impending) Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (concrete and particularized injury required for Article III standing) Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011) (economic loss from paying a premium because of misrepresentation satisfies California's lost-money requirement) Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to CLRA and UCL fraud-based claims) Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010) (standing and redressability principles for injunctive relief) Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (at motion-to-dismiss stage, court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true)