In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wyatt v. The Laundress, Judge Furman granted the motion as to express warranty and otherwise denied it.
Carol Jean Wyatt’s strict liability, negligence, and implied warranty claims remain in the case, while her express warranty claim was subject to the granted motion. The Laundress, LLC must answer the remaining claims within three weeks unless the court orders otherwise.
What happened
In Wyatt v. The Laundress, Carol Jean Wyatt alleged that contaminated fabric spray made by The Laundress, LLC caused her serious illness after she used it in Oregon. She brought claims for strict liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties under Oregon law.
The Laundress asked the court to dismiss Wyatt’s strict liability, negligence, and express warranty claims. Wyatt agreed to give up her express warranty claim, but opposed dismissal of her strict liability and negligence claims.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the motion as to the express warranty claim and otherwise denied it. The court found that Wyatt’s allegations about bacterial contamination and possible manufacturing or design problems were sufficient to allow her strict liability and negligence claims to proceed; The Laundress must answer the remaining claims within three weeks unless the court orders otherwise.
The detailed version
- In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-10667
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 4, 2025
Background
This opinion concerns Wyatt v. The Laundress, LLC, a case within the larger litigation involving cleaning products recalled because of potential bacterial contamination. Carol Jean Wyatt alleged that she bought a bottle of fabric spray in Oregon in August 2022, that the spray contained harmful bacteria, and that she was hospitalized with sepsis derived from pneumonia after using it for several weeks.
Wyatt asserted claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. The parties agreed that Oregon law governed those claims.
The Motion to Dismiss
The Laundress moved under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Wyatt’s first three claims. Under this rule, a defendant may seek dismissal at an early stage when the complaint does not adequately state a legally sufficient claim.
Wyatt conceded her breach of express warranty claim based on the parties’ briefing. The court therefore granted the motion as to that claim without further analysis.
The Laundress argued that Wyatt’s strict liability and negligence claims were insufficient because she did not identify a specific design defect or explain how the product departed from its design or manufacturing specifications. The court rejected that argument. Wyatt alleged that the fabric spray was contaminated with dangerous levels of pseudomonas aeruginosa, that the contamination departed from specifications intended to produce a safe and toxin-free product, and that contaminated raw materials or manufacturing conditions that allowed bacterial growth could have caused the contamination.
Ruling
The court concluded that these allegations, accepted as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, were sufficient to make Wyatt’s strict liability and negligence claims plausible rather than merely speculative. The motion to dismiss was therefore GRANTED as to Wyatt’s express warranty claim and otherwise DENIED. The Laundress must file an answer to Wyatt’s remaining claims within three weeks of the opinion unless the court orders otherwise. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion docketed as ECF No. 180.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.