1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THAYLIA DONNA QUINN, Case No.: 24-CV-856 JLS (SBC) individually, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, 13 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTION TO DISMISS 14 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO.; WAL- 15 COMPLAINT MART STORES, INC.; TARGET
16 CORPORATION; and DOES 1–100, (ECF No. 23) inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court are Defendants Procter & Gamble Co.’s (“P&G”), Wal- 20 Mart Inc.’s, and Target Corporation’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss 21 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 23). Plaintiff Thaylia Donna 22 Quinn filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 26), to 23 which Defendants filed a Reply in Support of the Motion (“Reply,” ECF No. 27). Having 24 carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 21), the Parties’ 25 arguments, and the law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 26 Defendants’ Motion. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff is a resident of Murrieta, California, who “habitually purchased Herbal 3 Essence-branded [dry shampoo] from Walmart and Target in San Diego County throughout 4 the past decade.” FAC ¶ 20. Specifically, Plaintiff purchased the “Herbal Essences White 5 Grapefruit & Mint Dry Shampoo and Herbal Essences Cucumber & Green Tea Dry 6 Shampoo Personal Injury Products.” Id. The Herbal Essences Brand has been in stores 7 since 1971 and was acquired by P&G, “a global leader in the manufacturing, distributing, 8 and sale of personal care products,” in 2001. Id. ¶¶ 34, 38. After acquiring Herbal 9 Essences, “P&G expanded the Herbal Essences Brand into aerosol spray shampoos and 10 conditioners, including the Herbal Essences White Grapefruit & Mint Dry Shampoo and 11 Herbal Essences Cucumber & Green Tea Dry Shampoo Personal Injury Products,” the 12 health care products (“Products”) at the center of this dispute. Id. ¶ 38. 13 In reliance on P&G’s “size and sterling reputation, [which] instantly lends credibility 14 to [its] product line,” id. ¶ 35, Plaintiff “used P&G’s personal care products for decades,” 15 id. ¶ 6. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, however, was the alleged presence of “significant and 16 unsafe levels of benzene—a known human carcinogen”—in the Products manufactured by 17 P&G. Id. ¶ 45. Particularly susceptible to benzene, says Plaintiff, are the underarms and 18 scalp, of which the “outermost layer of the skin is thinner and less protective.” Id. ¶ 3. 19 This outermost layer, or the stratum corneum, is critical to wellbeing as it “provides a 20 barrier that protects against unwanted chemicals passing through the skin, into the 21 bloodstream or lymphatic system and, ultimately, the internal organs.” Id. ¶ 2. One such 22 unwanted chemical is benzene. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff blames the benzene allegedly found in 23 the Products for the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (“CLL”) and bone marrow cancer of 24 which she now suffers. Id. ¶ 6. 25 Generally speaking, several voices from the scientific community support the 26 contention that exposure to benzene—“a colorless or light-yellow liquid at room 27 temperature”—is “detrimental to human health.” Id. ¶¶ 25–26. Plaintiff cites a plethora 28 of governmental agencies and other entities that have reached this conclusion. For 1 example, the “World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on 2 Cancer (“IARC”) have classified benzene as a Group 1 compound that is carcinogenic to 3 humans.” Id. ¶ 28. The United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has 4 similarly labeled benzene a “Class 1 solvent,” which means that it “should not be employed 5 in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products because of [its] 6 unacceptable toxicity.” Id. ¶ 29. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and 7 Health, the American Petroleum Institute, and multiple academic studies also favor a 8 risk-averse approach, with one 2010 study commenting that “[t]here is probably no safe 9 level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk.” Id. ¶¶ 30–31. That 10 said, the jury is out as far as what level of benzene exposure is tolerable, as the FDA does 11 permit the use of Class 1 solvents “if their use is unavoidable in order to produce a drug 12 product with a significant therapeutic advance,” in which case the solvents should be 13 restricted to two parts per million (“ppm”). Id. ¶ 29. 14 The State of California has taken precautionary measures with respect to benzene 15 and other like chemicals beyond those taken at the federal level, two of which Plaintiff 16 highlights in her Amended Complaint. First, Plaintiff cites the California Safe Cosmetics 17 Act of 2005 (“CSCA”). See id. ¶¶ 43–55. Under the CSCA, manufacturers of cosmetic 18 products containing “a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity” must 19 make certain public disclosures. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 111792(a). Because it has 20 been “given an overall carcinogenicity evaluation of Group 1, Group 2A, or Group 2B by 21 the [IARC],” benzene fits the mold. Id. § 111791.5(b)(2). Plaintiff alleges that P&G has 22 violated the CSCA because it “has never reported the significant and unsafe levels of 23 benzene in any of [its] cosmetic products . . . .” FAC ¶ 51. Second, Plaintiff cites 24 Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), which prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing 25 consumers to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without 26 adequate warnings. See id. ¶¶ 56–59 (citing CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.5, et 27 seq.). As she does above with respect to the CSCA, Plaintiff alleges that P&G has violated 28 Prop 65 by declining to provide the required warnings despite exposing the public to 1 benzene from the Products. Id. ¶ 58. 2 To support her claim that P&G’s Products contain some amount of benzene, Plaintiff 3 relies on two data points. First, Plaintiff alleges that “[s]everal of the [Products] were 4 independently tested and shown to contain dangerous levels of benzene, a known human 5 carcinogen.” Id. ¶ 7. Though Plaintiff does not crisply define this independent testing, she 6 later references the so-called Valisure Tests, which revealed that the Products “contain 7 some of the highest concentrations of benzene in the cosmetics industry.” Id. ¶ 52. Second, 8 Plaintiff pinpoints a P&G “recall of certain dry conditioner and shampoo products ‘from 9 Herbal Essences due to the presence of benzene,’” including the relevant Products. Id. 10 ¶ 41. According to Plaintiff, this recall, which took place on December 17, 2021, provides 11 evidence that “P&G was well aware that they were exposing individuals to benzene at 12 levels requiring a warning under [Prop 65].” Id. ¶ 59. Plaintiff alleges that these indicators, 13 coupled together with “the longstanding recommendations of the scientific community 14 extolling the dangerousness of benzene exposure,” demonstrate that “Defendants were 15 aware well in advance of placing the [Products] into the stream of commerce that they were 16 prone to unreasonably high rates of benzene presence,” but they “knowingly failed to take 17 any action to correct the defects in the [Products], including failing to warn or otherwise 18 educate the public,” “in order to advance their pecuniary gains.” Id. ¶¶ 61–66. 19 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 Plaintiff brought this action on November 9, 2023, in the Superior Court of the State 21 of California (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1 Ex. A). After service of the Complaint on April 18, 22 2024, Defendants timely removed the case to this Court on May 15, 2024. See ECF No. 1 23 at 4. Plaintiff asserted six causes of action, all under California state law: (1) negligence, 24 (2) failure to warn, (3) design defect, (4) manufacturing defect, (5) breach of implied 25 warranty of merchantability, and (6) fraudulent concealment. See Compl. Defendants filed 26 the first Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on June 17, 2024, seeking dismissal of 27 all claims. See ECF No. 14. 28 / / / 1 On February 6, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 2 Complaint (“Order,” ECF No. 20) and allowed Plaintiff leave to amend. While the Court 3 found that Plaintiff had satisfied her pleading requirement regarding being exposed to 4 enough benzene levels to cause her disease, Order at 10–12, the Court concluded that 5 Plaintiff had failed to “allege which Herbal Essences products she actually purchased and 6 used,” id. at 21. The Court, relying on Bowen v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 188 F.4th 1134 7 (9th Cir. 2024), clarified that “Plaintiff need not allege the batch or lot numbers from which 8 the products she purchased are from.” Order at 21 n.4. But rather, “[i]t is enough for 9 Plaintiff to identify the product(s) by name.” Id. Regarding Plaintiff’s fraudulent 10 concealment claim, the Court found the heightened pleading standard set forth in Federal 11 Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) unsatisfied. Id. at 23. The Court held that, “[a]lthough the 12 Complaint alleges that ‘P&G knowingly falsified their test results, ignored and suppressed 13 data, abdicated their responsibility to test, and/or further falsely mischaracterized adverse 14 test data,’ it does not allege who falsified the test results, when and where the test results 15 were falsified, or how they were falsified.” Id. The Court further noted that, while Plaintiff 16 asserted this claim against all Defendants, she alleged “no facts whatsoever to suggest that 17 either Walmart or Target had any involvement in the alleged concealment.” Id. 18 On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 19 alleging the same six causes of action, except bringing the fraudulent concealment claim 20 against only P&G. See FAC. On March 13, 2025, Defendants filed the current Motion 21 requesting Judicial Notice of “the FDA website cited by Defendants” and attacking 22 Plaintiff’s FAC on multiple grounds. See Mot. 23 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 24 Defendants request the Court take judicial notice and/or incorporate by reference 25 P&G’s December 17, 2021, recall notice as published on the FDA website (“Recall 26 Notice,” ECF No. 23 Ex-A). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. Legal Standard 2 “Generally, district courts may not consider material outside the pleadings when 3 assessing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018) 5 (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)). “There are two 6 exceptions to this rule: the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, and judicial notice under 7 Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” Id. Both exceptions “permit district courts to consider 8 materials outside a complaint . . . .” Id. 9 “[T]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute 10 because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can 11 be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 12 questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). “Accordingly, ‘[a] court may take judicial notice of 13 matters of public record . . . .’” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999 (quoting Lee, 250 F.3d at 689). 14 This would include information “made publicly available by government entities . . . and 15 neither party disputes the authenticity of the web sites or the accuracy of the information 16 displayed therein.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998–99 (9th Cir. 17 2010). However, “a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts contained in such 18 public records.” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999 (citing Lee, 250 F.3d at 689). 19 Under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, a court may “take into account 20 documents ‘whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party 21 questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiff’s] pleading.’” Knievel v. 22 ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Silicon 23 Graphics Inc. Secs. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999)). A defendant may seek to 24 incorporate a document into the complaint in two ways. First, “if the plaintiff refers 25 extensively to the document,” it may be incorporated by reference. United States v. Ritchie, 26 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Second, a document may be incorporated by reference 27 if “the document forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim.” Id. at 908. A document forms 28 1 the basis of the plaintiff’s claim when “the claim necessarily depend[s]” on the document. 2 Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1002 (quoting Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1076). 3 “The defendant may offer such a document, and the district court may treat such a 4 document as part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are true for 5 purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908. However, 6 “[t]he incorporation-by-reference doctrine does not override the fundamental rule that 7 courts must interpret the allegations and factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff at the 8 pleading stage.” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1014. 9 II. Analysis 10 The Court previously granted Defendants’ request for Judicial Notice of the Recall 11 Notice, see Order at 7, and Plaintiff does not object to this request, Reply at 2 n.1. 12 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for Judicial Notice of the existence of 13 the Recall Notice. 14 Regarding Defendants’ request to consider the Recall Notice incorporated by 15 reference, the Court previously denied this request because “Defendants provide[d] no 16 substance to this argument, nor [did] they cite any cases expounding upon the 17 incorporation-by-reference doctrine,” and because the Recall Notice was not referred to 18 extensively in the Complaint nor did it form the basis of the claim. Order at 6–7. The 19 Court now agrees with Defendants that the Recall Notice is referred to extensively in the 20 FAC. The Recall Notice is relied upon by Plaintiff to demonstrate that the Products did 21 contain benzene, and that Defendants were aware of this fact. FAC ¶¶ 7, 41–42, 58–59; 22 Opp’n at 11. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to incorporate the Recall 23 Notice by reference to demonstrate that the Herbal Essences White Grapefruit & Mint Dry 24 Shampoo and Herbal Essences Cucumber & Green Tea Dry Shampoo Personal Injury 25 Products are included in the Recall Notice. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 MOTION TO DISMISS 2 I. Legal Standard 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a party to raise by motion the 4 defense that the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To 5 survive a 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 6 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 7 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is 8 facially plausible when the facts pled “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference 9 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. That is not to say that the claim 10 must be probable, but there must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has 11 acted unlawfully.” Id. Facts “‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of 12 a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 13 Though this plausibility standard “does not require ‘detailed factual 14 allegations,’ . . . it [does] demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- 15 harmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, a 16 complaint will not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual 17 enhancement.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Put 18 differently, “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 19 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 20 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) requires a context-specific analysis involving the 21 Court’s “judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In performing 22 that analysis, “a district court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint, and 23 draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 24 382 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1020 (S.D. Cal. 2019). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not 25 permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has 26 alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 27 at 679 (second alternation in original). If a complaint does not survive Rule 12(b)(6), a 28 court grants leave to amend unless it determines that no modified contention “consistent 1 with the challenged pleading could . . . possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. 2 Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 II. Analysis 4 Defendants first argue that, while “Plaintiff may have met the first requirement in 5 the Court’s footnote and identified the products she used,” Plaintiff has still failed to satisfy 6 “the second requirement by making plausible allegations that these products contained 7 benzene.” Mot. at 18. Defendants then argue that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against 8 Walmart or Target for negligence or breach of an implied warranty.1 Id. at 21–22. 9 Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim against P&G fails 10 for lack of vertical privity, id. at 22–24, and that Plaintiff still has not satisfied the 11 heightened pleading standard required for her fraudulent concealment claim, id. at 24–26. 12 The Court considers each argument in turn. 13 A. Causation 14 First, the Court addresses Defendants’ causation argument that Plaintiff has failed to 15 plausibly allege that the Products she identified in her FAC contained benzene. Mot. at 18. 16 Defendants again make this argument globally, applying equally to all six of Plaintiff’s 17 claims as all six causes of action require a showing of causation to be viable. See U.S. 18 Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc., 463 P.2d 770, 774 (Cal. 1970) (stating the 19 principle that negligence requires the alleged breach to be the “the proximate or legal cause 20 of the resulting injury”); Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 377 P.2d 897, 900 (Cal. 21
22 1 Plaintiff, in her Opposition, states that she has “plausibly alleged design, manufacturing, and failure to 23 warn defect claims against Target and Walmart.” Opp’n at 14. Plaintiff then states that she “does not 24 intend to pursue any other claims against Target and Walmart at this time,” meaning that Plaintiff only intends on bringing the strict liability causes of action against Target and Walmart. Id. Defendants, in 25 their Reply, state that they “are not separately arguing that Plaintiff also does not state a strict liability claim against either retailer.” Reply at 5. Defendants only contest causation as to the strict liability claims. 26 Id. Therefore, the only claims Plaintiff intends on bringing against Walmart and Target are the strict liability claims: failure to warn (second cause of action), design defect (third cause of action), and 27 manufacturing defect (fourth cause of action). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s negligence (first cause of action) 28 and implied warranty of merchantability (fifth cause of action) claims, in so far as they are alleged against 1 1963) (en banc) (“A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the 2 market . . . proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.”); Gutierrez v. 3 Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61, 74 (Ct. App. 2018) (noting that a 4 cause of action for implied warranty of merchantability requires sufficient allegations of 5 causation); Graham v. Bank of Am., N.A., 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218, 228 (Ct. App. 2014) 6 (requiring the plaintiff to “sustain[] damage as a result of the [fraudulent] concealment”). 7 In the Court’s previous Order, the Court relied on a footnote in Bowen v. Energizer 8 Holdings, Inc., 118 F. 4th 1134, at 1149 n.13 (9th Cir. 2024), for the premise that the 9 Plaintiff need not allege the specific batch or lot numbers from which the Products were 10 purchased from. Order at 21 n.4. Plaintiff need only “identify the product(s) by name,” 11 and “then . . . the Court [can] make the determination as to whether it is plausible she was 12 exposed to benzene.” Id. Plaintiff, in her FAC, has identified two products by name that 13 she purchased routinely over the past decade: Herbal Essences White Grapefruit & Mint 14 Dry Shampoo and Herbal Essences Cucumber & Green Tea Dry Shampoo. FAC ¶ 20. 15 Defendants attempt to argue that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled causation because she 16 has not described the Products by the size, 4.9oz. and 1.7oz, or by type, i.e., the Herbal 17 Essences’ products that were specifically identified in the recall notice “by production code 18 range and UPC number.” Mot. at 18. Defendants misconstrue the language of the Court’s 19 previous Order— “[i]t is enough for Plaintiff to identify the product(s) by name.” Order 20 at 21 n.4. Therefore, Defendants’ argument is off the mark in this respect. 21 The Court must now address whether Plaintiff has plausibly pled that she was 22 exposed to benzene by the Products. Defendants argue that she has not because she has 23 not added any allegations that “Valisure specifically tested either [Product] she used, much 24 less what Valisure’s test results showed.” Mot. at 18. Defendant further posits that Plaintiff 25 continues to allege that “several” Herbal Essence products were “independently tested and 26 shown to contain dangerous levels of benzene,” FAC ¶ 7, but fails to allege that this testing 27 was conducted on the Products she bought and used, Mot. at 18. Plaintiff argues that she 28 need not prove, at the motion to dismiss stage, that the Products she “bought, used, and 1 discarded contained benzene.” Opp’n at 12 (quoting Bowen, 118 F. 4th at 1149 n.13). The 2 Court agrees with Plaintiff. 3 In her FAC, Plaintiff alleges that the Products were “independently tested and shown 4 to contain dangerous levels of benzene,” FAC ¶ 7, the “Valisure Tests” demonstrated that 5 the Products “contain some of the highest concentrations of benzene in the cosmetics 6 industry,” id. ¶ 52, and that, on December 17, 2021, P&G issued a recall of “certain dry 7 conditioner and shampoo products” including the relevant Products, id. ¶ 41. While these 8 allegations are not ideal, they are sufficient to plausibly allege that the Products contained 9 benzene. Like Bowen, where the court noted that the plaintiff “did not provide evidence to 10 support the allegation that the [product] she bought, used, and discarded contained 11 benzene,” 118 F. 4th at 1149 n.13, Plaintiff has also not provided evidence, at this stage, 12 that the specific Products she used contained benzene. However, the Court agrees that this 13 is not necessary to withstand Defendants’ Motion. See Bowen, 118 F. 4th at 1149 n.13. 14 The Court finds the analysis in Scheibe v. ProSupps USA, LLC, 141 F. 4th 1094, 15 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2025) persuasive. There, the Ninth Circuit analyzed whether the 16 plaintiff’s failure to plead nutrition testing according to the FDA’s sampling process 17 precluded plaintiff from pleading that a food’s label violated California consumer 18 protection laws due to preemption. Id. at 1096–97. “To promote ‘national uniform 19 nutrition labeling,’ the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts state laws that ‘directly or 20 indirectly establish . . . any requirement for nutrition labeling of food that is not identical’ 21 to the Act’s nutrition labeling requirements.” Id. at 1098 (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a)(4)) 22 (simplified). So, if a product’s label complies with the Act, which can only be determined 23 by the FDA’s testing and sampling methods, “then the Act preempts any state-law claim 24 that the product is mislabeled.” Id. (citation omitted). The plaintiff, to survive preemption, 25 had to “allege that the supplement was mislabeled ‘within the meaning of the federal 26 regulations.’” Id. at 1099 (quoting Nacarino v. Kashi Co., 77 F. 4th 1201, 1212 (9th Cir. 27 2023)). 28 1 The plaintiff, while satisfactorily alleging he complied with FDA’s testing methods, 2 only alleged that “one sample of the supplement, tested by an independent laboratory, 3 contained more carbohydrates and calories than [defendant] listed on the supplement’s 4 label.” Id. The court found that this was sufficient to allege that the plaintiff had complied 5 with FDA’s sampling methods because, while it was possible that “[the plaintiff’s] first 6 and only test result is an outlier” and that “[p]erhaps additional tests in discovery will 7 confirm that the supplement [did comply with the Act],” id. at 1100, “the Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure do not cast judges as skeptics of pleadings,” and rather “a court must 9 ‘assume that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact),’” id. 10 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (simplified). The court “decline[d] to adopt a rule that 11 would, in effect, require plaintiffs to perform the FDA’s sampling process at the pleading 12 stage to avoid preemption,” as “it may be impracticable for a plaintiff to [complete the 13 testing] before discovery opens.” Id. (citing 21 C.F.R. § 101.36(f)(1)). The court 14 emphasized that “plaintiffs are generally not expected to provide evidence in support of 15 their claims at the pleading stage.” Id. (quoting Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., 907 F. 16 3d 595, 603 n.8 (9th Cir. 2018)). Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff had 17 satisfied the plausible pleading standard for a motion to dismiss. Id. at 1101. 18 The Court is persuaded that this analysis can be applied here. In discovery it may 19 turn out that the Products Plaintiff used did not contain benzene; however, a definitive 20 showing that they contained benzene is not required to survive Defendant’s Motion. The 21 only requirement is that the Court be persuaded it is plausible, based on Plaintiff’s 22 allegations, the Products contained benzene. Plaintiff alleges that multiple tests found the 23 Products contained benzene, FAC ¶¶ 7, 52, and that the Products of the kind she routinely 24 purchased were recalled for containing benzene, id. ¶ 41. “[T]he Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure do not cast judges as skeptics of pleadings.” Scheibe, 141 F. 4th at 1100. While 26 it is true that Plaintiff has not proved that the specific Products she used contained benzene, 27 at this stage, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged she was exposed to 28 benzene by the Products. It is impractical to require Plaintiff to conduct extensive testing 1 to “provide evidence in support of [her] claims at the pleading stage.” Durnford, 907 F. 2 3d at 603 n.8. Later, this argument may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, but not in 3 the present Motion. 4 Moreover, the case cited by Defendants, Bodle v. Johnson & Johnson, is 5 distinguishable. No. 21-CV-7742-EMC, 2022 WL 18495043 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2022). 6 There, a key hurdle to the court concluding that plaintiff plausibly alleged a causal chain 7 was that plaintiff failed to “provide any information as to the timing of her diagnosis and 8 her alleged use of [d]efendant’s contaminated product to establish a plausible causal 9 chain.” Id. at 2. The court was not able to ascertain from the pleadings whether plaintiff’s 10 cancer diagnosis predated or postdated her exposure to the defendant’s products. Id. Here, 11 Plaintiff alleges that she used “P&G’s personal care products for decades,” FAC ¶ 6, and 12 she was diagnosed with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia on November 12, 2021, id. ¶ 20. 13 Therefore, the Court can plausibly follow the causal chain between the consistent use of 14 the Products before Plaintiff’s diagnosis. In so far as Defendants rely on their cases cited 15 in their initial motion to dismiss, the Court has already found these arguments without 16 merit. Order at 20. Further, Defendants’ insistence that Bowen is inapplicable because it 17 discusses a different cause of action and imposes a lower pleading standard than Rule 18 12(b)(6)’s plausibility standard has already been rejected by the Court. Id. at 19 n.3 (“The 19 Court notes that there is an important distinction between a false advertising case like 20 Bowen and a defective product case as the Court is faced with here. That said, the 21 distinction does not impact the Court’s analysis.”); Bowen, 118 F. 4th at 1049 n.13 22 (“Because [d]efendants did not produce evidence showing that the Ultra Sport 30 did not 23 contain benzene, we review the issue of whether the Ultra Sport 30 contained benzene 24 under the rubric for a facial challenge to jurisdiction, i.e., the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.”). 25 Therefore, Defendants’ Motion fails on causation grounds. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 B. Vertical Privity 2 Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s implied warranty claim against P&G fails for 3 lack of vertical privity.2 Mot. at 23. Plaintiff argues that Defendants waived this argument 4 because Defendants could have, but did not, raise this argument in their initial 12(b)(6) 5 motion to dismiss the original complaint. Opp’n at 14–17. Plaintiff alleges that “a 6 defendant who fails to assert a failure-to-state-a-claim defense in a pre-answer Rule 12 7 motion cannot assert that defense in a later pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. 8 at 14 (quoting In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 846 F.3d 313, 317–18 (9th Cir. 2017)). 9 The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s application of In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig. 10 “If a failure-to-state-a-claim defense under Rule 12(b)(6) was not asserted in the first 11 motion to dismiss under Rule 12, Rule 12(h)(2) tells us that it can be raised, but only in a 12 pleading under Rule 7, in a post-answer motion under Rule 12(c), or at trial.” Id. at 318 13 (citation omitted). However, as Defendants correctly point out, the Ninth Circuit, 14 following the language in In re Apple iPhone Litig., is extremely “forgiving” of district 15 courts exercising their discretion to consider subsequent motions raising new arguments 16 on the merits. See Cuviello v. City of Vallejo, No. 16-cv-2584-KJM-KLN, 2020 WL 17 6728796, at *4–5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020) (allowing a new argument in a second 12(b)(6) 18 motion following the Circuit’s “forgiving” stance); SVB Fin. Tr. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 19 No. 23-cv-6543-BLF, 2025 WL 661599, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2025) (considering a 20 newly raised argument because the court had no reason to believe that the defendant sought 21 to delay the litigation). Many district courts in this Circuit have concluded that new 22 arguments in a subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion should routinely be considered on the 23 merits. See, e.g., Dawson v. One Call Medical, Inc., No. 20-cv-1188-LAB-KSC, 2022 WL 24 22899885, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2022) (collecting cases) (finding that defendants “need 25 not consolidate all failure-to-state-a-claim arguments in a single dismissal motion”); 26 27 28 2 As discussed above, Plaintiff no longer intends to bring a breach of implied warranty claim against 1 Manlin v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. CV 16-6625-AB (KSx), 2017 WL 8180779, 2 at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2021) (collecting cases) (“Rule 12(g)(2) does not prohibit a new 3 Rule 12(b)(6) argument from being raised in a successive motion.”); Moreno v. Castlerock 4 Farming and Transport Inc., No. 12-CV-556 AWI JLT, 2022 WL 902597, at *3–4 (E.D. 5 Cal. Mar. 28, 2022) (following other district courts in California and considering the merits 6 of newly raised arguments in a successive motion to dismiss). Therefore, the Court will 7 consider Defendants’ vertical privity argument on the merits. 8 “Vertical privity is an essential element for an implied warranty claim under 9 California law.” Valentine v. Crocs, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 3d 1204, 1213 (N.D. Cal. 2025) 10 (citing Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1023–24 (9th Cir. 2008)). “A 11 buyer and seller stand in privity if they are in adjoining links of the distribution chain.” 12 Clemens, 534 F. Supp. at 1023 (citing Osborne v. Subaru of Am. Inc., 198 Cal. App. 3d 13 646, 656 n.6 (1988)). An end consumer who buys from a retailer is not in privity with a 14 manufacturer. Id. Here, Defendants correctly argue that Plaintiff is not in vertical privity 15 with P&G because Plaintiff is the consumer and P&G is the manufacturer. Mot. at 22–23. 16 Therefore, without an exception, her implied warranty cause of action fails for lack of 17 vertical privity. 18 There are exceptions to the privity requirement such as: (1) in the case of an express 19 warranty, the plaintiff relies on written labels or advertisements of a manufacturer, Burr v. 20 Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal. 2d 682, 696 (1954); (2) foodstuffs, drugs, and pesticides, 21 id., (3) certain employees who are injured while using dangerous products purchased by 22 their employers, Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co., 54 Cal. 2d 339, 347–48 (1960); and 23 debatably, (4) third party beneficiaries, Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 304 F. Supp. 837, 853–55 24 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Here, Plaintiff does not address Defendants’ vertical privity argument 25 on the merits and does not allege that she fits within any exception. For the sake of judicial 26 efficiency, the Court will consider whether Plaintiff’s claim fits into any of the exceptions. 27 The Court concludes it does not. 28 1 First, regarding the advertising exception, Plaintiff brings an implied warranty claim, 2 so Plaintiff cannot use this exception as it only applies in express warranty claims. See 3 Burr, 42 Cal. 2d at 696 (discussing an exception where “the purchaser of a product relied 4 on representations made by the manufacturer in labels or advertising material, and recovery 5 from the manufacturer was allowed on the theory of express warranty without a showing 6 of privity”). 7 Second, Plaintiff cannot fit her implied warranty argument for dry shampoo into the 8 exception for foodstuffs, drugs, and pesticides. See Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 9 14 Cal. 2d 272, 283–84 (1939) (creating the exception). This exception is intended to apply 10 to drugs and foodstuffs “designed . . . for introduction into the body of a human being.” 11 Gottsdanker v. Cutter Laboratories, 182 Cal. App. 2d 602, 607 (1960). In special cases, 12 this exception excuses the privity requirement “when the product is unfit for human 13 consumption or physically injures a consumer.” Seale v. GSK Consumer Health Inc., 718 14 F. Supp. 3d 1208, 1230 (C.D. Cal. 2024). The foodstuffs exception “has been extended to 15 drugs, on the basis that a drug is intended for human consumption quite as much as is 16 food.” Choi v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., No. SA CV 19-468-DOC (ADSx), 2019 17 WL 4894120, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019) (collecting cases). 18 After a review of California and Ninth Circuit caselaw, the Court has not found a 19 case applying this exception to, as the Plaintiff describes in her FAC and Opposition, a 20 “cosmetic” product such as the Products at issue here.3 See Opp’n at 18 (“Plaintiff has 21 alleged that the subject products are wholly unfit for their ordinary purpose as cosmetic 22 products because they are unsafe.” (emphasis added)) (“Again, a cosmetic product that 23 causes CLL is not fit for its ordinary use.” (emphasis added)); FAC ¶¶ 44–46; cf. Choi, 24 2019 WL 4894120, at *10 (finding tampons fit the exception because they are intended to 25 26 3 While the Court notes one district court has found sunscreen “sufficiently similar to drugs, foodstuffs, and pesticides” to qualify for the exception, considering the direction of the Ninth Circuit in Clemens, the 27 Court declines to extend this exception to cover a cosmetic product like dry shampoo. See Hazard v. 28 Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., No. 23-7629 PA (MRWx), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221326, at *6 1 be “consumed” by humans); Moran v. Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, No. 21-CV-7669- 2 RS, 2022 WL 3046906, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2022) (granting a motion to dismiss based 3 on lack of privity where the relevant product was sunscreen). “The Ninth Circuit [in 4 Clemens], in describing the exceptions arising in ‘special cases’ involving foodstuffs, 5 pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, has held that federal courts sitting in diversity are ‘not free 6 to create new exceptions [to the privity requirement].’” Choi, 2019 WL 4894120, at *11 7 (quoting Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1024); see also Xavier v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 787 F. 8 Supp. 2d 1075, 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (finding cigarettes did not fit the foodstuffs 9 exception because it is up to the California courts to extend the exception not a federal 10 court). Therefore, because the Products at issue are cosmetic and not a foodstuff, drug, or 11 pesticide, and the Court declines to create a new exception, Plaintiff’s claim cannot survive 12 under this exception. 13 Third, regarding the employee exception, Plaintiff is not an employee of any of the 14 Defendants and did not use a dangerous product, so this exception does not apply. 15 Peterson, 54 Cal. 2d at 347–48; see also Clemens, 534 F.3d 1017, 1023 (discussing 16 exception in the special case “where the end user is an employee of the purchaser”). 17 Fourth, the third-party beneficiary exception under California law has not been 18 explicitly recognized in the Ninth Circuit. See Valentine, 783 F. Supp. 3d at 1213–14 19 (citing Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1023) (“The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly recognized the 20 existence of an exception to the privity requirement for third-party beneficiaries.”). “There 21 is an ongoing split in authority . . . regarding whether a third-party beneficiary exception 22 to the vertical privity requirement remains available post-Clemens.” In re Natera Prenatal 23 Testing Litig., 664 F. Supp. 3d 995, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (collecting cases). 24 The first half of the split—finding the exception does not exist—asserts that Clemens 25 contained a detailed discussion of the exceptions to the privity requirements under 26 California law but omitted any mention of the beneficiary exception. See Clemens, 534 27 F.3d at 1023–24. Clemens also emphasized that “California courts have painstakingly 28 established the scope of the privity requirement” and “a federal court sitting in diversity is 1 not free to create new exceptions to it.” Id. at 1024 (internal citations omitted). These 2 courts have found that the few California cases recognizing the third-party beneficiary 3 exception—Gilbert and Burch—have only found it in the real estate construction contract 4 context allowing a homeowner to sue a subcontractor and have concluded that “no third- 5 party beneficiary exception has ever been applied in a citable decision.” Quackenbush v. 6 Am. Honda Motor Co., 650 F. Supp. 3d 837, 843 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (considering Gilbert 7 Fin. Corp. v. Steelform Contracting Co., 82 Cal. App. 3d 65 (1978) and Burch v. Superior 8 Ct., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411 (2014)); see also Xavier, 787 F. Supp. 2d at 1083 (finding no 9 vertical privity in a products liability action for cigarettes because “[n]o reported California 10 decision has held that the purchaser of a consumer product may dodge the privity rule by 11 asserting that [they are] a third party-beneficiary of the distribution agreements linking the 12 manufacturer to the retailer who ultimately made the sale”). The court in Quackenbush 13 also emphasized that if this privity requirement were broadened, “[a]ll end-user purchasers 14 of consumer products could claim exempted status” thus making the privity requirement 15 obsolete. Quakenbush, 650 F. Supp 3d at 844 (citing In re Seagate Tech. LLC. Litig., 233 16 F. Supp. 3d 776, 787 (N.D. Cal. 2017)). These courts conclude that “Gilbert is specific to 17 its facts” and any courts finding otherwise “require a plaintiff to show that [she] was a 18 third-party beneficiary of a contract between the defendant and a third party.” Shay v. 19 Apple Inc., No. 20cv1629-GPC(BLM), 2021 WL 1733385, at *7 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2021) 20 (collecting cases); see also Reed v. Dynamic Pet Products, No. 15cv987-WQH-DHB, 2015 21 WL 4742202, at *11 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2015) (finding the exception inapplicable for the 22 purchase of Real Ham Bone For Dogs from Walmart because plaintiff failed to allege that 23 they were the “intended beneficiary of any contracts between Wal-Mart and Defendants”). 24 The other half of the split concludes that “[i]n light of Gilbert and the lack of a clear 25 holding to the contrary in Clemens . . . the third-party beneficiary exception remains viable 26 under California law.” In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 936, 984 27 (N.D. Cal. 2014); see also Zeiger, 304 F. Supp. 3d at 854 (“Given that Clemens did not 28 directly address the third-party beneficiary exception, nor did it address Gilbert, it need not 1 be read to foreclose the third-party beneficiary exception to privity under California law.”). 2 Many of the cases finding the exception applicable have been in the context of a vehicle 3 dealership selling a car to a consumer. See, e.g., Goldstein v. GM LLC, No. 19cv1778-LL- 4 AHG, 2022 WL 484995, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022) (finding that the purchasers of 5 the vehicles from authorized dealerships were intended third-party beneficiaries); Wadeea 6 v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 758 F. Supp. 3d 1217, 1227 (S.D. Cal. 2024) (finding an 7 issue of fact whether plaintiff was an intended beneficiary of the implied warranty between 8 the car manufacturer and the authorized dealer). 9 The Court finds that the third-party exception does not apply. See Corbett v. 10 Pharmacare U.S., Inc., 544 F. Supp. 3d 996, 1011 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (finding the third-party 11 beneficiary exception inapplicable for a vitamin supplement because plaintiff did not 12 demonstrate that they were a third-party beneficiary). First, the Court is doubtful that the 13 beneficiary exception is applicable in products liability suits of this nature. Gilbert arose 14 in a very specific factual scenario involving a construction contract between a contractor 15 and a sub-contractor where the court did not decide the privity issue because the plaintiff 16 was a third-party beneficiary of the contract. 82 Cal. App. 3d at 69 (“Under the facts of 17 this case we do not need to decide the issue of privity, per se.”). Here, the Plaintiff is 18 simply a consumer purchasing the Products from Walmart and Target. If the Court were 19 to allow every purchaser of a product from a retailer such as Walmart and Target to meet 20 the exception to vertical privity as a third-party beneficiary, then the privity requirement 21 would be moot. See Quackenbush, 650 F. Supp. 3d at 844. Further, absent explicit 22 evidence of the existence of this exception in a California decision, the Court is reluctant 23 to expand the exception to this extent. See Clemens, 534 F.3d at 1024 (“[A] federal court 24 sitting in diversity is not free to create new exceptions . . . .”); Klaehn v. Cali Bamboo, 25 LLC, No. 19-CV-1498 TWR (KSC), 2021 WL 3044166, at *15 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2021) 26 (“This [c]ourt is persuaded by the reasoning of [the cases] that follow Clemens’ guidance 27 to not create an exception to California’s privity requirement in advance of any California 28 1 state court.”); Loomis v. Slendertone Distrib., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 1046, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2 2019) (same). 3 Therefore, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s implied warranty 4 claim to P&G without leave to amend. 5 C. Fraudulent Concealment 6 The Court next considers Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has still failed to meet 7 Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard for her fraudulent concealment claim. Mot. at 8 24. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Court’s previous Order that she 9 must “allege who falsified the test results, when and where the test results were falsified, 10 or how they were falsified,” id. (quoting Order at 23), by “adding vague allegations that 11 this conduct was perpetrated by ‘P&G’s senior executive, legal, compliance, government 12 relations, public policy, and brand protection teams, who routinely received test data at 13 regular intervals confirming the presence of benzene in their products and, each time, 14 intentionally chose not to disclose the same to consumers despite their duty to do so,’” id. 15 (quoting FAC ¶ 4). 16 Plaintiff argues that she has satisfied the heightened pleading requirements. Opp’n 17 at 19–21. She states that the who is “P&G’s senior executive, legal, compliance, 18 governmental relations, public policy, and brand protection teams.” Id. at 19. The when 19 is allegedly “an ongoing omission spanning from 2005 onward.” Id. at 20. The where is 20 the “CDPH’s reporting system where P&G was legally required to disclose the presence 21 of benzene” as P&G “had an ongoing duty to disclose the presence of benzene to the public 22 pursuant to Proposition 65 and the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005,” yet they 23 “never” did. Id. The how is “P&G’s deliberate omission from mandatory regulatory 24 disclosures to CDPH through its failure to report what its internal testing had confirmed 25 with respect to its products.” Id. at 21. Defendants counter that P&G cannot be liable for 26 fraudulent concealment when “she herself pleads that P&G publicly and voluntarily 27 recalled some of its products based on internal testing conducted by P&G.” Reply at 11. 28 / / / 1 In California, plaintiffs alleging fraudulent concealment must plead five elements: 2 (1) [T]he defendant must have concealed or suppressed a 3 material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have 4 intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to 5 defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of 6 the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the 7 concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage. 8
9 Kaldenbach v. Mut. of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 637, 652 (Ct. App. 2009) 10 (quoting Roddenberry v. Roddenberry, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 907, 926 (Ct. App. 1996)). 11 Because this is a fraud claim, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) sets the bar for 12 Plaintiff’s pleadings. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1102–03 13 (9th Cir. 2003). Under Rule 9(b), “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with 14 particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” These allegations must be 15 “specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to 16 constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny 17 that they have done anything wrong.” Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 18 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Neubronner v. Milken, 19 6 F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 1993)). 20 The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff has satisfied the pleading standard required 21 for fraudulent concealment claims. Plaintiff alleges that the Products “have not been 22 proven safe” and “contain significant, unsafe levels of benzene, a known carcinogen.” 23 FAC ¶ 103. Plaintiff states, in a conclusory manner, that P&G “knew that the products 24 contained benzene, but intentionally failed to disclose that material fact to consumers.” Id. 25 ¶ 105. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged they had a duty to disclose because 26 she failed to allege that P&G knew that the products contained benzene, and thus failed to 27 allege how they could have falsified any test results. Mot. at 25. The Court agrees. 28 Plaintiff simply alleges that P&G has known the products contained benzene since 2005 1 because they “routinely received test data at regular intervals confirming the presence of 2 benzene in their products,” FAC ¶ 58, “lobbied against the CSCA,” id. ¶ 53, and were 3 aware that their “competitors have reported the presence of benzene in their [own] 4 products,” id. ¶ 50. However, Plaintiff does not allege any test results or other evidence 5 before the 2021 recall of the Products demonstrating that P&G’s Products contained 6 benzene. Id. ¶ 41. Because of this, Plaintiff has failed to allege that P&G had any 7 knowledge that its Products contained benzene during the alleged period, 2005 until the 8 2021 Recall Notice. See Daugherty v. Padagis US LLC, 794 F. Supp. 3d 674, 695 (N.D. 9 Cal. 2025) (dismissing fraudulent concealment claim based on a failure to disclose a 10 presence of benzene because the plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating how 11 defendants violated the regulatory standards or deceived consumers); cf. Acedo v. DMAX, 12 Ltd., No. CV 15-02443 MMM (ASx), 2015 WL 12696176, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 13 2025) (finding Rule 9(b) satisfied when plaintiff alleged that how defendant concealed the 14 information was “by denying, following the receipt of customer complaints, that there was 15 a known defect and by assuring consumers that their vehicles had no defect”); see also 16 Ehrich v. BMW of North America, LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 908, 919 (C.D. Cal. 2010) 17 (denying a motion to dismiss on a fraudulent concealment claim where plaintiff pled with 18 particularity how the design was defected, how defendant discovered the defect, and the 19 steps defendant took to conceal the defect); Falk v. General Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 20 2d 1088, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (denying motion to dismiss on a fraudulent concealment 21 claim where plaintiff alleged that defendant ignored consumer complaints and intentionally 22 gave the impression that the defective products were unique cases). 23 Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegation that “P&G sold the Personal Injury Products 24 despite its actual or constructive knowledge of a material design and/or manufacturing 25 defect” and that “P&G knew or should have known that Plaintiff would suffer injuries 26 caused by the inclusion of benzene in the Personal Injury Products” are insufficient to 27 satisfy Rule 9. FAC ¶ 10; see Daugherty, 794 F. Supp. 3d at 695 (“Plaintiffs’ allegation 28 1 that ‘had Defendants adequately tested their BPO Products for benzene, they would have 2 discovered that the Products contained benzene’ is too conclusory.”). 3 Further, Plaintiff’s allegation that “P&G’s senior executive, legal, compliance, 4 governmental relations, public policy, and brand protection teams” were aware of the level 5 of benzene and failed to disclose it is also too conclusory to survive Defendants’ Motion. 6 FAC ¶ 105; see Snyder v. Does 1 Through 50, No. 30-cv-8419-KAW, 2021 WL 4170766, 7 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2021) (dismissing a fraudulent concealment claim when plaintiff 8 did not identify any of the defendants by name, but merely alleged that “all of the 9 defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with [p]laintiff” and “intentionally failed to 10 disclose the danger of benzene exposure”). Defendants are correct that “[w]ithout 11 identifying the time, place, and specific content of the alleged fraud as well as the identities 12 of the parties to the misrepresentation, P&G is not on notice about who allegedly concealed 13 any material facts, when or where that concealment occurred, or how that concealment 14 occurred.” Mot. at 25 (first citing Tapia v. Davol, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1163 (S.D. 15 Cal. 2015), then citing Kennedy v. Lehman Bros. Bank, No. 10-CV-1516 JLS (AJB), 2010 16 WL 4537831, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010)). 17 Therefore, Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim is DISMISSED WITH 18 LEAVE TO AMEND to plead fraud with particularity, including the specific misconduct 19 by named individuals within P&G. 20 CONCLUSION 21 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 22 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff’s negligence (first cause of action) 23 and implied warranty of merchantability claims (fifth cause of action), in so far as they are 24 alleged against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Target Corporation, are DISMISSED 25 WITHOUT PREJUDICE.4 Plaintiff’s implied warranty of merchantability (fifth cause 26 27 28 4 Plaintiff indicated that she no longer intends to bring these causes of action against Walmart and Target. 1 || of action), in so far as it is alleged against P&G, is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 2 || AMEND. Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim (sixth cause of action) against P&G is 3 || DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 4 Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Plaintiff either (1) SHALL FILE a 5 ||second amended complaint, or (2) SHALL INDICATE to the Court that she will not do 6 Any amended complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to 7 || Plaintiff's original Complaint or First Amended Complaint; claims not realleged in the 8 |}amended complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Lacey v. 9 || Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting claims dismissed with leave 10 || to amend that are not realleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived”). 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: January 5, 2026 ft .
14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28