Deliotte v. L'Oreal Usa, Inc.
Opinion
Deliotte v L'Oreal Usa, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 31193(U)
April 9, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 156144/2024 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice
-----------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 156144/2024 NATHAN DELIOTTE, Individually and as Administrator of MOTION DATE 11/14/2024 the ESTATE OF GLORIA DELIOTTE, Deceased
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 011 - V -
L'OREAL USA, INC.,L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC.,SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC,STRENGTH OF NATURE, LLC,GODREJ SON HOLDINGS, INC.,LUSTER PRODUCTS COMPANY, NAMASTE LABORATORIES, LLC D/B/A ORGANIC ROOT STIMULATOR, BEAUTY BELL DECISION + ORDER ON ENTERPRISE D/B/A HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, INC. AND MOTION HOUSE OF CHEATHAM LLC,HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, LLC,BEAUTY KINGDOM USA CORP., BEAUTY PLUS BEAUTY SUPPLY STORE INC.,WOW BEAUTY SUPPLY INC.
Defendants.
---------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 011) 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 131, 138 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS
Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of January 28, 2025, Plaintiff Nathan Deliotte, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Gloria Deliotte's, ("Plaintiff') motion seeking leave to amend his Complaint is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
Gloria Deliotte ("Decedent") frequently used hair relaxers allegedly produced, manufactured, and sold by the numerous Defendants. These products allegedly caused her uterine/endometrial cancer. Plaintiff alleges Defendants' products contained numerous endocrine- disrupting chemicals which when applied to the scalp greatly increased the risk of developing gynecological cancer, and that Defendants failed to warn consumers about these chemical
156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 011
[* 1] 1 of 5
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
ingredients. Plaintiff sues Defendants for damages related to Decedent's cancer based on numerous theories of liability.
Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a Second Amended Complaint to include Defendants House of Cheatham, LLC and Beauty Bell Enterprises, LLC d/b/a House of Cheatham, Inc. (collectively "House of Cheatham Defendants") and Namaste Laboratories, LLC ("Namaste") in the heading of his first cause of action alleging Strict Liability - Design and/or Manufacturing Defect, and the heading of his fourth cause of action Negligence - Design and/or Manufacturing Defect. Plaintiff also seeks leave to include an allegation that the lfouse of Cheatham Defendants developed, tested, assembled, marketed, manufactured, and sold chemical hair relaxer products known to the House of Cheatham Defendants, but unknown to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Decedent, that contained endocrine disrupting chemicals. Plaintiff claims the amendments are needed to correct typographical errors. The House of Cheatham Defendants and Namaste oppose the motion.
II. Discussion
Leave to amend pleadings is freely granted in the absence of prejudice if the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law (Mashinksy v Drescher, 188 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2020]). A party opposing a motion to amend must demonstrate that it would be substantially prejudiced by the amendment, or the amendments are patently devoid of merit (Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 298 AD2d 180, 181 [1st Dept 2002]). Delay alone is not sufficient to deny leave to amend (Johnson v Montefiore Medical Center, 203 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2022]).
Given this liberal standard, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to assert design defect claims against Namaste and the House of Cheatham Defendants and is granted leave to include the requested factual allegation paragraph against the House of Cheatham Defendants. There is no
156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 011
[* 2] 2 of 5
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
showing of prejudice as this case is still in its infancy, with little to no discovery taking place and oral argument scheduled on multiple pre-answer motions to dismiss to take place in May of 2025.
Moreover, the proposed amendments seeking to assert design defect claims are not patently devoid of merit. The House of Cheatham Defendants and Namaste only oppose amendment based on the sufficiency of the allegations. However, as long held by the Court of Appeals, a design defect claim arises when a product is "unreasonably dangerous for its intended use" or "whose utility does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of commerce." (Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 107 [1983]). Plaintiff explicitly alleges that The House of Cheatham Defendants and Namaste hair relaxer products were unreasonably dangerous because they contained toxic ingredients which increase the risk of cancer. Given the lenient standard on a motion seeking leave to amend, these proposed allegations are sufficient to grant leave to amend.
However, the motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert manufacturing defect claims against The House of Cheatham Defendants and N amaste. A cause of action alleging design defect is distinct from a manufacturing defect claim, and a review of the allegations in the second and fourth causes of action clarify that Plaintiff is only alleging causes of action based on design defect, even though the headings state "Design and/or Manufacturing Defect." Indeed, to allege a manufacturing defect claim, there must be allegations that there was a mistake or error during the manufacturing process which made a product defective (Narvaez v Wadsworth, 58 Misc.3d 12229[A] at 7 [Sup. Ct., Bx Cty, 2018] citing Fitzpatrickv Currie, 52 AD3d 1089, 1090 [3d Dept 2008]). Here, there are no allegations that the products used were manufactured defectively- rather Plaintiff alleges the products were designed defectively by including dangerous ingredients and
156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 011
[* 3] 3 of 5
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
failing to warn consumers about the dangers of those ingredients. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to assert claims of manufacturing defect, leave is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 31193(U) (Deliotte v. L'Oreal Usa, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.