148 F. Supp. 3d 285
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jinette Hidalgo filed a putative class action against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. alleging that J&J labeled certain “Bedtime” baby products as "clinically proven" to help babies sleep when only a three-step routine (bath, massage, quiet time) was clinically tested.
- Hidalgo alleges she purchased Bedtime Bath and Bedtime Lotion within the past five years, used them as directed, found them ineffective, and paid a premium because of the "clinically proven" label.
- Claims: (1) violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (consumer fraud) and (2) unjust enrichment; she seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of a New York purchaser class.
- J&J moved to dismiss for lack of standing (Rule 12(b)(1)), to strike class allegations (Rule 12(f)), and to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)).
- Court ruled: motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Rule 12(f) motion to strike DENIED. Hidalgo’s injunctive relief and unjust enrichment claim dismissed with prejudice; Section 349 claim survives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Hidalgo seeks injunction for deceptive labeling | J&J: Hidalgo admits she will not repurchase, so no future injury | Court: No Article III standing for injunctive relief; claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Class allegations (scope: pre-2010 purchases / non-label ads) | Hidalgo seeks a New York purchaser class; she purchased post-2010 and relied on labels | J&J: Hidalgo lacks class standing to represent purchasers outside her purchase timeframe or who relied on other ads | Court: Motion to strike denied as premature; these issues belong at class-certification after discovery |
| Section 349 — statute of limitations | Hidalgo alleges purchase "within past five years" | J&J: Claims are time-barred under 3-year statute | Court: Dismissal as time-barred is premature; complaint does not clearly establish untimeliness on its face |
| Section 349 — materially misleading / plausibility | "Clinically proven" labeling misled reasonable consumers into believing products alone were tested | J&J: Labels are true because products were tested as part of studies; disclosure of three-step routine negates misleadingness | Court: Allegations plausibly state a materially misleading representation; Section 349 claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility and two‑pronged Iqbal/Twombly framework)
- Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. § 349 objective reasonable-consumer standard)
- NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (class standing and allegations that named plaintiffs suffered injury)
- Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 467 (Section 349 pleading principles in similar product-labeling consumer-fraud context)