In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation

Background

The Laundress, LLC moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, seeking dismissal of Margaret Murphy’s class claims. Murphy was one of four named plaintiffs in the consolidated class complaint. The opinion states that Murphy was no longer represented by counsel, and neither she nor the other named plaintiffs filed an opposition by the deadline.

Ruling on Class Claims

The court granted the motion with respect to Murphy’s class claims. It relied on the rule that a person proceeding without a lawyer cannot assert claims on behalf of other people. The court applied that principle to class-action claims and dismissed without prejudice any claims Murphy asserted on behalf of others.

Individual Claims and Further Order

The Laundress also argued that Murphy’s claims should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to actively pursue the case. The court did not dismiss Murphy’s individual claims at that time. Instead, it ordered Murphy to indicate by April 18, 2025, whether she intended to pursue those claims. If she did not respond, the court stated that it would dismiss her claims altogether as abandoned or for failure to prosecute and would require the other plaintiffs to file an amended complaint removing references to her.

Because the court did not have Murphy’s address, it ordered counsel for the other plaintiffs to serve her with the order by regular mail by March 21, 2025, and file proof of service showing her address. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion.