In re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 4:20-md-02936

Background

Plaintiffs (putative nationwide class) challenge four tractor hydraulic fluid products (the “303 THF Products”) sold under Smitty’s and CAM2 labels, alleging the fluids did not meet 303 specifications and damaged equipment or were worthless.
Plaintiffs filed an MDL in the W.D. Mo.; the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint (FACC) is the operative pleading asserting common-law and state statutory claims across 41 states.
Defendants moved to dismiss the FACC in full; the Court heard argument and devoted extensive choice-of-law analysis, applying each plaintiff’s home-state law where conflicts existed.
Major legal disputes: Article III standing (injury, injunctive relief, standing for unpurchased variants), adequacy of pleaded damages, Rule 9(b) fraud pleading, warranty doctrines (privity, notice, express vs. puffery), and whether state product-liability statutes preempt common-law claims.
The Court denied dismissal of most fraud-based and common-law claims at the pleading stage, but granted dismissal in part: plaintiffs’ injunctive-relief claim and many state-specific warranty/tort claims were dismissed where state law required privity, notice, or where product-liability acts displaced common-law claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III injury (economic loss)	Plaintiffs allege they paid purchase price for worthless/defective fluid and suffered equipment damage.	No particularized injury; plaintiffs didn’t allege reading/ reliance on specific label language.	Injury-in-fact adequately pleaded by allegations of reliance on labels and purchase-price/property loss.
Standing for injunctive relief	Plaintiffs seek injunction to stop deceptive sales and relabeling.	Plaintiffs lack imminent future injury or intent to repurchase; products at issue were withdrawn.	Injunctive-relief claim dismissed for lack of likelihood of future injury.
Standing for unpurchased product variants	Class plaintiffs purchased some but not all labeled variants; products are same fluid.	A plaintiff lacks Article III standing for products she didn’t buy.	At pleading stage, plaintiffs have standing for substantially similar products; claims proceed.
Pleading of damages (property & purchase-price)	Allege equipment damage and overpayment (premium/worthless product).	Allegations are boilerplate and lack specifics to calculate damages.	Court finds allegations (with extensive factual pleading) sufficient to state cognizable property and purchase-price injuries.
Fraud-based claims / Rule 9(b)	Allege who (Defendants), what ("303" labels), where (41 states), when (Dec 2013–present), how (misleading specs/ingredients) and individual reliance.	Challenges as conclusory and lacking particularity.	Rule 9(b) satisfied; fraud-based (Counts V–VII, VIII–XLII) survive pleading challenge.
Express & implied warranties (existence, privity, notice)	Labels created express warranties; implied warranties and warranty-based damages alleged.	Many states require privity or pre-suit notice; labels may be puffery or disclaimers may negate fitness.	Express warranty claims survive in many states where privity is not required or labels suffice; claims dismissed in states requiring privity or specific notice where plaintiffs conceded or failed to plead it; disclaimer adequacy is a factual question for later.
Puffery defense to express warranty/fraud	Plaintiffs: labels make verifiable claims (e.g., meet JD-303, specific performance attributes).	Defendants: statements are non-actionable puffery.	Court holds many label statements are specific and verifiable (not mere puffery) at pleading stage; claims survive.
State product-liability statutes preemption	Plaintiffs assert common-law torts and consumer statutes.	Several states’ PLAs preempt common-law tort/warranty claims for property damage or product defects.	Court dismissed certain common-law counts for plaintiffs in states whose PLAs subsume those claims (e.g., CT, IN, KS, LA, MS, NJ, OH as to some counts), while allowing non-PLA statutory claims (e.g., state consumer-fraud counts) to proceed in many cases.

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (named plaintiffs must allege personal injury)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards and plausibility)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (economic injury as basis for standing)
In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Prods. Liab. Litig., 999 F.3d 534 (8th Cir. 2021) (MDL choice-of-law guidance)
In re Zurn PEX Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011) (inherent defect and need not wait for external manifestation)
Olson v. Fairview Health Servs. of Minnesota, 831 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 9(b) particularity requirements)
Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009) (pre-suit notice pleading issues)
Trooien v. Mansour, 608 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation)
Renaissance Leasing, LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 322 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. 2010) (elements of breach of express warranty)
Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006) (prior-notice requirement under Ohio consumer statute)