891 F. Supp. 2d 757
D. Maryland
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Dawn Stanley's pug Booker ingested a piece of a Nylabone Double Action Chew Toy made by TFH, a Central Garden subsidiary, causing intestinal injury.
  • Stanley seeks to sue on behalf of a Maryland class of consumers who purchased Nylabone chew toys.
  • Eight claims are pleaded: strict liability, negligence, implied and express warranties, fraud, MCPA, other state consumer laws, and unjust enrichment.
  • Defendants move to dismiss five counts and to strike class allegations; Central Garden is challenged as a party.
  • The court grants in part and denies in part, with specific rulings on warnings, express warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, veil piercing, and class treatment.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Adequacy of warning under strict liability Warnings are inadequate to apprise of ingestion risks. Warnings are adequate and reasonable. Warning adequate; strict liability failure-to-warn claim dismissed.
Negligence based on failure to warn Defendants breached duty by inadequate warnings. Warnings meet standard; no duty breach. Negligence claim based on failure to warn dismissed.
Breach of express warranty Marketing and labeling created express warranties the product was safe. No specific express warranty tied to Stanley's product; Express warranty claim dismissed.
Fraud Defendants concealed risks and misled consumers to purchase. No concealment alleged beyond marketing; no intent shown. Fraud claim survives; fraudulent concealment adequately pled.
Piercing central veil to hold parent liable Central Garden used TFH to defraud and/or for paramount equity. No veil piercing; separate corporate entities; no fraud or equity basis shown. veil piercing against Central Garden granted; Central Garden dismissed as party.

Key Cases Cited

  • Hood v. Ryobi Am. Corp., 181 F.3d 608 (4th Cir.1999) (warnings must render product not unreasonably dangerous)
  • Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc., 303 Md. 581 (Md. 1985) (adequacy of warnings under Maryland law)
  • Nolan v. Dillon, 276 A.2d 36 (Md. 1971) (reasonable warnings not best possible warnings)
  • Liesener v. Weslo, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 857 (D.Md.1991) (warn of dangers without being overly technical)
  • Ryobi, 181 F.3d 608 (4th Cir.1999) (analysis of warnings under Maryland law)
  • Bart Arconti & Sons, Inc. v. Ames-Ennis, Inc., 275 Md. 295 (Md. 1975) (veil piercing requires fraud or paramount equity)
  • DeWitt Truck Bros. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., 540 F.2d 681 (4th Cir.1976) (alter ego factors for piercing the corporate veil)
  • Travel Comm., Inc. v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 603 A.2d 1318 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1992) (veil piercing considerations in Maryland)
  • Ferrell v. Benson, 352 Md. 2 (Md. 1998) (statutory damages cap for pet-related torts)
  • Rhee v. Highland Dev. Corp., 182 Md.App. 516 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2008) (fraudulent concealment and disclosure duties in Maryland)
  • Green v. H&R Block, Inc., 355 Md. 488 (Md. 1999) (elements of fraudulent concealment and damages nexus)
  • Sager v. Housing Comm’n of Anne Arundel County, 855 F.Supp.2d 524 (D.Md.2012) (MCPA damages including emotional distress remedial limits)
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23(b)(2) limits on monetary damages class actions)
  • Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. Supreme Ct. 1997) (predominance and superiority in class actions)
Read the full case