Patrick Warnshuis v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
1:19-cv-01454
E.D. Cal.Jun 18, 2020Background
- In Aug. 2018 Warnshuis purchased Ocean Saline Nasal Spray via Amazon; after use he developed chronic sinus infections.
- In Sept. 2018 he received a recall notice identifying possible contamination with the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa; his cultures later tested positive for that organism.
- Warnshuis sued Bausch Health U.S., LLC (and others) in state court asserting strict products liability (manufacturing defect), negligence (products liability), and breach of warranty; the case was removed to federal court.
- Bausch moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing defects in pleading (overuse of “information and belief,” improper lumping of defendants, failure to plead essential elements, and lack of privity for warranty claims).
- The court held the first cause of action (manufacturing defect strict liability) and the punitive-damages request tied to it plausible and denied dismissal as to those; it granted dismissal of the negligence and warranty claims but granted leave to amend.
- The court gave Warnshuis 21 days to file a third amended complaint fixing the identified pleading deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict-products-liability (manufacturing defect) | Warnshuis: contamination alleged and supported by recall, medical tests, and his use — adequate to plead a manufacturing defect | Bausch: allegations are conclusory, made on information and belief, and improperly lump Bausch with other defendants; fail to identify how product deviated from design | Court: claim plausible; allegations (recall, infection, contamination) suffice to state a manufacturing-defect strict liability claim; dismissal denied |
| Negligence (products liability) | Warnshuis: defect (bacterial contamination) caused his injuries; alleged failures in manufacturing controls support negligence | Bausch: allegations rely on improper information-and-belief assertions, improperly lump all defendants, and fail to link negligent acts to each defendant | Court: key paragraphs pled on information and belief (¶¶29,32) lack factual support and will be disregarded; after dropping those allegations negligence claim is implausible and must be dismissed with leave to amend |
| Breach of warranty (express & implied) | Warnshuis: product name and use support express and implied warranty claims and the product was unmerchantable/unsafe | Bausch: warranty claims fail — plaintiff bought from Amazon so no vertical privity with manufacturer; express terms not pleaded; allegations lump defendants | Court: express warranty claim dismissed (terms not pled); implied warranty of merchantability plausibly alleged as to a product introduced into the body but plaintiff failed to identify the manufacturer (no privity showing as to Bausch/PQM) — warranty claims dismissed with leave to amend |
| Punitive damages | Warnshuis: prayer for punitive damages need not be detailed at pleading stage; allegations of knowledge/supporting facts suffice | Bausch: punitive damages require heightened specificity and allegations of malice/fraud/ oppression tied to Bausch’s conduct | Court: Rule 12(b)(6) can test punitive-damages pleadings; allegations that Bausch (and PQM) knew of bacterial contamination and manufacturing failures plausibly support malice; punitive-damages request tied to the surviving manufacturing-defect claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading requires factual plausibility, not mere conclusions)
- Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910 (allegations on information and belief permissible when facts are peculiarly within defendant's control)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (definition and elements of manufacturing defect theory)
- In re Coordinated Latex Glove Litigation, 99 Cal. App. 4th 594 (manufacturing-defect as product deviating from intended result)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (vertical privity requirement for certain warranty claims)
- Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal. App. 2d 602 (privity exception for medicines/vaccines extends warranty protection to consumers)
- Roby v. McKesson, 47 Cal.4th 686 (standards for punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294)
- Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123 (pleading must give fair notice and factual grounds for entitlement to relief)