McKnight v. Amazon.com

1

JAMIE MCKNIGHT, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM INC. et al. Defendants

Civil Action No. 23-1449

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 14, 2024

MEMORANDUM

GENE E.K. PRATTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Amazon.com is a website that has oftentimes been called “The Everything Store.” See, e.g., Brad Stone The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon (Hachette Book Group 2013). Jamie McKnight, when he went to visit his barber Tyrese Skinner in Philadelphia allegedly suffered injuries when Mr. Skinner applied a mole removal cream to his scalp.

Mr McKnight alleges that Mr. Skinner bought the mole removal cream from Amazon.com. Or if not from Amazon, then he bought it from WalMart. Or if not from Amazon, then from Target. Or if not from Amazon, then from eBay. In other words, Mr McKnight has fashioned his complaint as its own type of everything store, where each retailer must have been the one who sold the mole removal cream. In doing so, Mr. McKnight has only marginally pled a sufficient case against Amazon, and as for the others, Mr. McKnight's cart includes only speculation and implausibility. Thus, the Court grants Target's, WalMart's, and eBay's motions to dismiss. The Court also denies Amazon's Motion to Dismiss in part, though grants it to the extent that Mr. McKnight's Second Amended Complaint includes a claim for recklessness and relies on any allegation pertaining to a duty of post-sale recall.

Background

In August 2021, Jamie McKnight went to barber Tyrese Skinner, where Mr. McKnight allegedly purchased skin tag and mole removal services. Mr. Skinner applied a skin tag and mole removal cream manufactured by Amada Pure to Mr. McKnight's head, which allegedly caused Mr. McKnight to suffer significant scarring, pain, and permanent disfigurement. Mr. McKnight alleges that neither Mr. Skinner nor Amada Pure provided warnings about the mole removal cream.

Mr. McKnight alleges that Mr. Skinner “is known and/or believed to have ordered and purchased” the mole removal cream “from Defendant Amazon's online website.” Mr. McKnight also alleges that Mr. Skinner told him “directly” that he purchased the cream from Amazon.com. Mr. McKnight includes various information about the product listed on Amazon's website, including the allegation that the Amazon listing for the mole removal cream “deliberately hid/concealed or made less visible reviews which revealed that the product causes burning and scarring[.]”As for the other retailer defendants, WalMart, Target, and eBay, their involvement is limited to the same line repeated throughout Mr. McKnight's Complaint: “[T]o the extent Amazon was not the seller of the subject product, it is averred that Defendant [WalMart, Target, or eBay] is more likely than not the seller and distributor of the Amada Pure Skin Tag and Mole Removal Cream....” Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11, 13.

Mr. McKnight first brought his claims against the defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, though Amazon removed the case to federal court. This Court then denied Mr. McKnight's motion to remand the case back to state court and provided Mr. McKnight a final opportunity to amend his complaint. Mr. McKnight filed his Second Amended Complaint, and Target, WalMart, eBay, and Amazon each separately moved to dismiss the operative complaint for failure to state a claim. The Second Amended Complaint includes strict liability claims and “negligence and recklessness” claims against the retailer defendants.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissing a complaint, in whole or in part, if the party filing a motion to dismiss can demonstrate that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court is “required to accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from [the allegations] after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Conrad v. Pa. State Police, 902 F.3d 178, 182 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994)).

“However, ‘the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.'” Doe v. McDonald's USA, LLC, 504 F.Supp.3d 360, 364 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In other words, “[t]o prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must now set out ‘sufficient factual matter' to show that the claim is facially plausible.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

Discussion

I. Whether the Second Amended Complaint Includes Sufficient Factual Allegations

To prevail on a strict products liability, the plaintiff must prove that “(1) the product was defective, (2) the defect proximately caused the plaintiff's injury, and (3) the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant's control.” Wright v. Ryobi Techs., Inc., 175 F.Supp.3d 439, 449 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (citing Pavlik v. Lane Ltd./Tobacco Exp. Int'l, 135 F.3d 876, 881 (3d Cir. 1998)). “[A] person or entity engaged in the business of selling a product has a duty to make and/or market the product-which ‘is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold'-free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer [or the consumer's] property.'” Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328, 383 (Pa. 2014) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A(1) (Am. L. Inst. 1965)). In other words, “[t]he duty in strict liability pertains to the duty of a manufacturer and of suppliers in the chain of distribution to the ultimate consumer.” Id. at 383.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has not yet determined whether an e-commerce business can be strictly liable for products sold on its website by a third-party vendor, but recently granted the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's petition seeking an answer on this question: “Under Pennsylvania law, is an e-commerce business, like Amazon, strictly liable for a defective product that was purchased on its platform from a third-party vendor, which product was neither possessed nor owned by the e-commerce business?”Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, Inc., 237 A.3d 394 (Table) (July 21, 2020).

Here, because none of the retailer defendants argues that it cannot be held strictly liable under this theory, the Court need not decide this issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provides guidance on the question posed. The Court next analyzes the specific claims raised in Amazon's Motion to Dismiss.

A. Amazon

Amazon argues that Mr. McKnight's Complaint should be dismissed in full because, by alleging that WalMart, Target, eBay, and Amazon sold the defective mole removal cream, Mr. McKnight's Complaint is not plausible where all four retailers could not have sold the mole removal cream in question. Mem. L. in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss 6, Doc. No. 77. Amazon also argues that Mr. McKnight relies only on the allegation that his barber, Mr. Skinner, told him that he purchased the cream on Amazon and that Mr. McKnight “provides no substantive facts to support said purchase, such as a sales receipt, order confirmation number, the date of the alleged sale, [etc.].” Id. at 6-7.

This inquiry, however, forces the Court to consider the evidence supporting Mr. McKnight's allegations, not whether Mr. McKnight's claims are plausible. It very well could be that there is no evidence supporting Mr. McKnight's allegations, but that is a question to be raised on a motion for summary judgment, not at the motion to dismiss stage. See Penn Eng'g & Mfg. Corp. v. Peninsula Components, Inc., No. 19-513, 2023 WL 9051998, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2023) (“The key to surviving summary judgment is evidence.”).

Furthermore, Mr. McKnight includes allegations supporting his claims against Amazon beyond the statements from Mr. Skinner. In the first instance, Mr. McKnight alleges that Amazon sold the mole removal cream in question and includes ratings and identifiers for the product. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 18-19, Doc. No. 74. Mr. McKnight also avers that an Amazon vehicle delivered the mole removal cream to Mr. Skinner. Id. ¶ 20. Taken together, these factual allegations support a plausible claim that Mr. McKnight's barber purchased the allegedly defective mole removal cream on Amazon, where it was allegedly under Amazon's control, and applied it to his scalp, leaving significant injuries.

At first glance, the fact that Mr. McKnight includes Target WalMart, and eBay as defendants in this matter complicates the analysis. Afterall, Mr. Skinner could not have bought the mole removal cream from all four entities, and “Pennsylvania courts are reluctant to apply market share liability ....” Warnick v. NMC-Wollard, Inc., 512 F.Supp.2d 318, 334 n.26 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (Hardiman, J.). Including these additional defendants may decrease the probability that Mr. Skinner purchased the mole removal cream from Amazon because it increases the uncertainty that Mr. Skinner actually made such a purchase from The Everything Store. However, the plausibility standard as articulated in Iqbal “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement'” but instead “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at...