Watkins v. Nurture, LLC

Background

The plaintiff parents sued baby-food manufacturers, alleging that heavy metals in the food injured their young son. They also sued the retail defendants, Amazon.com and Whole Foods, for negligence. The action was originally filed in Louisiana and was later transferred into the multidistrict litigation concerning baby-food products.

The retailers moved to dismiss. The court applied Louisiana law because the parties agreed that Louisiana law governed the claim.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that, under Louisiana law, a non-manufacturing seller of a defective product is not responsible for tort damages unless the seller knew or should have known that the product was defective and failed to disclose that fact. The court also noted that a non-manufacturing seller is not required to inspect a product before sale to determine whether it has an inherent defect.

Because the plaintiffs alleged that Amazon.com and Whole Foods were retail sellers rather than manufacturers, the court concluded that they could not have breached a duty to the plaintiffs’ son under that theory.

The plaintiffs argued that they were pursuing a negligent-performance-of-an-undertaking theory under Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. That theory can impose liability when someone undertakes services necessary to protect a third person and physical harm results from failing to use reasonable care, if the failure increases the risk of harm, the undertaking performs another person’s duty, or the injured person relied on the undertaking.

The court applied the federal pleading standard, which requires enough factual allegations to make liability plausible rather than merely possible. It found that the plaintiffs had made only conclusory assertions that the retailers were service providers engaged in curating, selecting, testing, and monitoring goods. The complaint did not allege facts supporting a plausible inference that the retailers affirmatively agreed to test and monitor the baby food or otherwise undertook a duty to the plaintiffs’ son.

Ruling

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted the retailers’ motion to dismiss. The court noted that the master long-form complaint filed on July 15, 2024, did not assert claims against Amazon.com or Whole Foods. The court stated that, at the July 25, 2024 case-management conference, it would discuss with the parties whether leave to amend the claims against the retailers should be granted. The order disposed of Docket No. 220 in Case No. 24-cv-2832.