Machlan v. Procter & Gamble Co.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1643
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Machlan sues Procter & Gamble Co. and Nehemiah Manufacturing Co. for marketing flushable wipes (Charmin Freshmates and Pampers Kandoo) as flushable, allegedly misleading consumers.
- Wipes marketed as flushable allegedly do not disperse or biodegrade and can clog pipes, per utility district statements cited in the complaint.
- Plaintiff purchased Pampers Kandoo wipes (one 350-count package) in January 2014; he experienced toilet clogs and found wipes remained intact.
- Plaintiff asserts four California claims: CLRA, FAL, fraud, and UCL; seeks restitution, injunctive relief, and damages.
- Defendants removed the action under CAFA; P&G moves to dismiss under 12(b)(1)/12(b)(6)/9(b); Nehemiah moves to dismiss or strike class allegations; court grants in part, remands injunctive relief to state court, and dismisses Charmin-wipes claims against Machlan with prejudice while allowing renewal by a new plaintiff; remaining claims proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Machlan may seek injunctions; may be likely to be misled again | No real and immediate threat of repetition; unlikely to purchase again or be misled | Machlan lacks standing for injunctive relief in federal court; injunctive claims remanded to state court |
| Standing to challenge Charmin Freshmates (not purchased) | Similarity between products supports standing to challenge Charmin claims | Plaintiff did not purchase Charmin and has no standing for those claims | Charmin claims dismissed with prejudice as to Machlan; may be renewed by a new plaintiff who purchased Charmin |
| Standing to pursue Pampers Kandoo claims | Machlan purchased Pampers and alleges shared responsibility for manufacturing/marketing | Licensing/ownership terms negate standing or misrepresentations | Court sustains standing to pursue Pampers Kandoo claims against P&G; claims not dismissed for this product |
| Injury-in-fact sufficiency | Wipes clogged toilet; deception about flushability caused purchase | Argues no actual flushing injury proven | Plaintiff pleads injury-in-fact; allegations plausibly show injury from misrepresentation (flushability) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing for injunctive relief requires likelihood of future harm)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.2011) (standing for injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of future harm)
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (remand vs. dismissal when pendent state claims; court may remand to preserve state-law claims)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2009) (California UCL remedies; injunction as primary relief; comity considerations with federal court)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.2004) (intertwined jurisdiction and merits; jurisdiction may depend on merits)