Lizama v. Venus Labs., Inc.

679 F.Supp.3d 848

Delia De Santiago LIZAMA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VENUS LABORATORIES, INC., d/b/a Earth Friendly Products, Inc., Defendant.

No. 4:22-CV-841 RLW

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

Signed June 27, 2023

Adam M. Goffstein, Law Office of A. M. Goffstein, Daniel John Orlowsky, Orlowsky Law LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs.

Brent Dwerlkotte, Christopher Robert Wray, Shook Hardy LLP, Kansas City, MO, Eva Marie Mannoia Weiler, Pro Hac Vice, Naoki Stephen Kaneko, Pro Hac Vice, Shook Hardy LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss and strike allegations in the First Amended Complaint, filed by Defendant Venus Laboratories, Inc., doing business as Earth Friendly Products, Inc., (hereinafter "Defendant" or "Venus Laboratories"). (ECF No. 21). Venus Laboratories moves to dismiss claims brought by Plaintiff Michelle Olsen for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Venus Laboratories also moves to dismiss any claims related to products the plaintiffs did not purchase, for lack of standing. In addition, Venus Laboratories moves to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims brought under Missouri's and California's consumer protection statutes and state common law for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finally, Defendant moves to strike the nationwide class allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Plaintiffs Delia De Santiago Lizama and Michelle Olsen oppose the motion, which is fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to dismiss and to strike allegations in the Complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Lizama and Olsen allege in their First Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Complaint") that Venus Laboratories has misled and continues to mislead consumers into believing its products are "green," in other words, that they are safe and not harmful to the environment. Plaintiffs contend they and other environmentally conscious consumers paid a premium price for Venus Laboratories' products based on Defendant's representations that its products are non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly. According to the Complaint, however, Defendant's products contain toxic and harmful ingredients. Plaintiffs seek to represent consumers who were allegedly misled into purchasing Venus Laboratories' products at premium prices under false representations that the products were non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly, when they are not. Plaintiffs Lizama and Olsen seek to bring this suit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated.

Venus Laboratories manufactures a variety of household cleaning and personal care products under the name ECOS®, which are sold in retail stores nationwide. Plaintiff Lizama, who is a citizen of Missouri, alleges she purchased Venus Laboratories' products from Whole Foods Market in St. Louis County, Missouri. More specifically, Plaintiff Lizama alleges she bought ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Lavender, ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Free & Clear, and ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Magnolia & Lily. Plaintiff Olsen, who is a citizen of California, alleges she purchased Venus Laboratories' products from Whole Foods Market in Pasadena, California. More specifically, Plaintiff Olsen alleges she bought ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Free & Clear.

Both Plaintiffs allege they purchased Venus Laboratories' products because they saw labeling, advertising, Defendant's website, and read the packaging, all of which represented that Venus Laboratories' products were "non-toxic," "safer," "made without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors," "climate positive," "Earth Friendly," and/or "sustainable." (ECF No. 15 at 6-8). Plaintiffs allege they understood these representations to mean that Venus Laboratories' products were non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly and would not cause harm to humans, animals, and/or the environment. Further, both Plaintiffs allege they would not have purchased Venus Laboratories' products at all or would have been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the products, had they known that the products were toxic, harmful, dangerous, and environmentally damaging. Plaintiffs also allege they would purchase Defendant's products in the future if Defendant changed the composition of its products so that they conformed to their "non-toxic," "safer," "made without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors," "climate positive," "Earth Friendly," and/or "sustainable" packaging and labeling, or if the packages and labels were corrected and Plaintiffs could trust that they are accurate.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs list 51 ECOS® products they contend fail to conform to Venus Laboratories' representations that its products are "non-toxic," "safer," "made without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors," "climate positive," "Earth Friendly," and/or "sustainable," because the products allegedly contain toxic, harmful, dangerous, and environmentally damaging ingredients. Plaintiffs purchased 4 of the 51 products in the list.

The Complaint also lists 38 ingredients that can be found in Defendant's products, and there are allegations purporting to show why each of the 38 ingredients are toxic, harmful, dangerous, and/or environmentally damaging. In the Complaint is a table listing the 51 ECOS® products with the allegedly toxic, harmful, dangerous, and environmentally damaging ingredients they contain. None of the 51 products contain all 38 ingredients. Each product contains a combination of between 2 to 12 allegedly toxic, harmful, dangerous, and environmentally damaging ingredients. Plaintiffs allege they and other consumers have been unlawfully misled by Defendant's representations, because Venus Laboratories' products contain these ingredients.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs bring 13 counts against Venus Laboratories pursuant to state law.¹ In Counts I-V, Plaintiff Lizama asserts Defendant has violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 401.010, et seq. ("MMPA"). In Counts VI-VIII, Plaintiff Olsen brings claims for violations of the California Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Law, Cal. Bus & Prof. Codes § 17200 et seq. ("CUDAP") (Count VI); the California Deceptive Advertising Practices Law, Cal. Bus & Prof. Codes § 17500 et seq., ("CDAP") (Count VII); and the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act, Cal. Civ. Codes § 1750, et seq. ("CLRA") (Count VIII). In Counts IX-XIII, both Plaintiffs assert common law claims for breach of express warranty (Count IX); breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count X); unjust enrichment (Count XI); negligent misrepresentation (Count XII); and fraud (XIII).

Plaintiff Lizama seeks to bring claims on behalf of herself and a class of Missouri consumers. Plaintiff Olsen seeks to bring claims on behalf of herself and a class of California consumers. Both plaintiffs seek to bring common law claims on behalf of a nationwide class. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order declaring that Venus Laboratories' conduct violates Missouri's and California's statutory laws, as well as state common laws. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Venus Laboratories moves to dismiss Defendant Olsen's claims for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Personal jurisdiction takes two forms: " '[G]eneral' (sometimes called 'all-purpose') jurisdiction and 'specific' (sometimes called 'case-linked') jurisdiction." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., San Francisco Cnty., 582 U.S. 255, 262, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 198 L.Ed.2d 395 (2017) ("Bristol-Myers") (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011)). "General jurisdiction exists where a defendant is essentially at home in the forum state, whereas specific jurisdiction covers defendants less intimately connected with a State, but only as to a narrower class of claims, namely those that arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum." Bros. & Sisters in Christ, LLC v. Zazzle, Inc., 42 F.4th 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).

There are no allegations the would permit the Court to find that Venus Laboratories is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Missouri. Venus Laboratories is a Delaware corporation headquartered in California with its principal place of business in Illinois. Venus Laboratories has no alleged connections to Missouri. Finding there is no general jurisdiction over Venus Laboratories in Missouri, the Court now turns to whether there is specific jurisdiction.

In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court found that due process did not permit the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident consumers' products liability claims against a nonresident defendant where there was no connection to the forum state. 582 U.S. at 262, 137 S.Ct. 1773. Under Bristol-Myers, the Court should exercise jurisdiction only if there is specific jurisdiction, that is "a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue." Id. at 265, 137 S.Ct. 1773. To exercise personal jurisdiction over Venus Laboratories in this case, each of the Plaintiffs' claims must "arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum," and there must be an "activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State." Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1025-26, 209 L.Ed.2d 225 (2021) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted).

Citing to Bristol-Myers, Venus...