Snyder v. FARNAM COMPANIES, INC.
792 F. Supp. 2d 712
D.N.J.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Snyder, Reilley, and Baldasano bring a putative class action against Farnam (Central Life Sciences) and Wellmark (Central Garden & Pet Company).
- Defendants manufacture and sell spot-on flea and tick treatments for dogs and cats containing permethrin, methoprene, pyriproxyfen, and etofenprox.
- EPA issued a 2009 press release noting a sharp increase in incidents from spot-on products.
- Plaintiffs allege the products caused pets to suffer skin irritation, neurological problems, lethargy, weight loss, and abnormal behavior.
- Plaintiffs assert counts for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, NJCFA, and ICFA, seeking damages measured by price paid minus diminished value.
- Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion: Central Garden & Pet Co. dismissed; Count Three unjust enrichment dismissed without prejudice; other counts survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIFRA preemption of NJCFA/ICFA claims | NJCFA/ICFA claims are not labeling requirements. | Preempted if claims impose labeling/packaging requirements under FIFRA. | Not preempted at this stage; NJCFA/ICFA claims not solely labeling-based. |
| Liability of Central Garden & Pet Company | Parent liability may extend to claims against Farnam/Central Life Sciences. | Parent cannot be held liable absent specific factual allegations; dismissible. | Central Garden & Pet Co. dismissed without prejudice; claims against Farnam/Wellmark remain. |
| Breach of express warranty (New Jersey law) | Defendants made concrete affirmations about safety that became part of the bargain. | Statements are puffery and not warranties. | Count One survives; alleged statements identified as more than puffery and could constitute express warranties. |
| Choice of law for express warranty | NJ law applies to warranty claim given state-law variation; conflicts exist. | Choice of law should be determined under Restatement factors; premature at this stage. | Proceeding under NJ law for pleading purposes; full choice-of-law deferred for later stages as needed. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Plaintiffs conferred a direct benefit on Defendants via purchases; recovery allowed. | No direct benefit to manufacturer since purchases were through retailers. | Count Three dismissed without prejudice for lack of direct benefit; can be amended if direct-deal theory is pled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences L.L.C., 544 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2005) (FIFRA preemption limits on labeling requirements)
- Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., 460 F.3d 483 (3d Cir. 2006) (FIFRA does not preempt express warranty claims)
- Indian Brand Farms, Inc. v. Novartis Crop Prot., Inc., 617 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2010) (fraud claims not preempted when not labeling)
- In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D.N.J. 2004) (Restatement choice-of-law factors in contract claims)
- Union Ink Co., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 352 N.J. Super. 617 (App. Div. 2002) (puffery as a jury question; warranty statements judged on facts)