Quinn v. Walgreen Co.
958 F. Supp. 2d 533
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Quinn and Ducorsky filed a putative class action against Walgreens alleging its glucosamine/chondroitin supplements falsely claim to “help rebuild cartilage.”
- Plaintiffs bought Walgreens’ Triple Strength product (Quinn bought in NY & CT; Ducorsky in NY) and allege they relied on the labeling and would not have purchased the products had they known the representations were false.
- Walgreens moved to stay this case under the first-filed rule pending disposition of an earlier-filed Illinois action (Guilin) and alternatively moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The Illinois action involves a different named plaintiff, asserts California law claims, and seeks certification of a multi-state class that could potentially include NY and CT purchasers but has not been certified.
- The complaint asserts claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq., breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment; plaintiffs cite scientific studies to allege the labeling is affirmatively false.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay under the first-filed rule | Guilin is related; stay promotes judicial economy | Guilin is not identical; different plaintiffs and laws; stay unnecessary | Denied — first-filed rule inapplicable because parties and issues are not the same and Guilin may not be dispositive |
| Standing to assert claims for products not purchased | Plaintiffs can represent purchasers of substantially similar products; class-stage is proper time to resolve scope | Named plaintiffs lack standing to sue on products they did not buy | Denied — plaintiffs have standing for now; similarity of products makes this a class-certification issue |
| Sufficiency of consumer-protection claims (NY GBL § 349 and CUTPA) | Labeling “help rebuild cartilage” is false/deceptive; scientific studies support falsity | Statements are non-actionable or merely lack substantiation; studies are weak | Denied — claims plausibly plead deception; falsity is a factual question unsuited to dismissal |
| Breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment | Warranty (100% satisfaction) and retention of benefits support claims | Plaintiffs failed to give timely notice for warranty; unjust enrichment not warranted | Warranty claim dismissed for failure to plead notice; unjust enrichment claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- First City Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Simmons, 878 F.2d 76 (2d Cir.) (first-filed rule favors first suit)
- Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 522 F.3d 271 (2d Cir.) (considerations of docket administration under first-filed rule)
- Pelman ex rel. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 396 F.3d 508 (2d Cir.) (Section 349 not subject to Rule 9(b))