Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2025

Fuller v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-04225
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Fuller v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Judge Abrams ordered briefing on whether Ohio law abrogates all of Fuller’s product-liability claims.

Who this affects

Kellie Ann Fuller and Colgate-Palmolive Company; the order requires further briefing and does not resolve the motion to dismiss.

What happened

In Fuller v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Kellie Ann Fuller sued Colgate-Palmolive Company, and the company moved to dismiss some or all of her claims. The opinion does not state the underlying facts of the product-liability dispute.

Colgate-Palmolive argued, and Fuller agreed, that the Ohio Products Liability Act eliminates her claims for implied warranty of fitness and implied warranty of merchantability. The court noted that earlier decisions suggest the Act may eliminate all common-law claims connected to product-liability damages unless an exception applies.

The court did not decide whether the Act eliminates all of Fuller’s product-liability claims. Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered Colgate-Palmolive to address that question by February 7, 2025, and allowed Fuller to respond by February 14, 2025.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fuller v. Colgate-Palmolive Company · No. 1:24-cv-04225
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Jan. 28, 2025

Background

Kellie Ann Fuller brought product-liability claims against Colgate-Palmolive Company. Colgate-Palmolive filed a motion to dismiss. The opinion does not describe the alleged product, injury, or other underlying facts.

Issue and parties’ positions

Colgate-Palmolive argued that the Ohio Products Liability Act (OPLA) abrogates, or eliminates, Fuller’s claims for implied warranty of fitness and implied warranty of merchantability. Fuller conceded that point.

The court noted that decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio suggest that the OPLA may abrogate all common-law claims arising from damages connected to product-liability claims, unless an exception applies. The opinion does not determine whether any exception applies here.

Court’s action

The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order. Instead, it ordered Colgate-Palmolive to advise the court no later than February 7, 2025, whether the OPLA abrogates all of Fuller’s product-liability claims. Fuller may reply by February 14, 2025. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order on January 28, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.