In Re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation
3:24-md-03101
N.D. Cal.Dec 3, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs allege that their child developed autism spectrum disorder due to toxic heavy metals in baby food consumed before the diagnosis.
- The allegedly harmful baby food was sold by Amazon and Whole Foods (the "Retailer Defendants"), who did not manufacture the products but sold them in significant quantities.
- Plaintiffs asserted negligence, redhibition, and strict products liability claims (under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, or LPLA) against the retailers.
- The Court previously dismissed the negligence claim with leave to amend; Plaintiffs then added new detail and included a new LPLA claim in their Second Amended Petition (SAP).
- Retailer Defendants moved to dismiss both the negligence and LPLA claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and also moved to strike portions of the redhibition and LPLA claims as violating a previous court order limiting amendments.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss both the LPLA and negligence claims but denied the motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Retailers “manufacturer-sellers” for LPLA? | Retailers' ingredient standards/control make them liable. | They lack control/influence over harmful heavy metals. | Retailers not manufacturer-sellers under LPLA; claim dismissed. |
| Negligent undertaking (Amazon)? | Amazon assumed duty via product safety team/website review. | No sufficient allegation of assumption or breach of duty. | No plausible negligent undertaking; claim dismissed with leave. |
| Negligent undertaking (Whole Foods)? | Standards/ingredients lists create duty to warn/monitor. | No facts show duty extended to heavy metals/contaminants. | No plausible claim; dismissed without leave to amend. |
| Motion to strike redhibition/LPLA claims | N/A (primarily procedural, concerning court order compliance) | Claims added in violation of amendment order, should be stricken. | Motion to strike denied; changes not severe or prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., 387 So. 3d 515 (La. 2024) (LPLA only covers manufacturers; details assumption of duty under Louisiana law)
- Parks ex rel. Parks v. Baby Fair Imports, Inc., 726 So. 2d 62 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1998) (retailers with only general product standards are not manufacturer-sellers)
- Ard v. Kraft, Inc., 540 So. 2d 1172 (La. Ct. App. 1989) (retailers may reasonably rely on representations of reputable food manufacturers)
- Hebert v. Rapides Par. Police Jury, 974 So. 2d 635 (La. 2007) (discusses voluntary assumption of duty under Louisiana law)