Guarracino v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
- Nelson Roman
- 7:24-cv-03074
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Guarracino v. Kimberly-Clark, Judge Román granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss without prejudice because the complaint lacked supporting facts.
Debra Guarracino’s claims against Kimberly-Clark Corporation were dismissed without prejudice, subject to her opportunity to file an amended complaint by July 1, 2025.
What happened
In Guarracino v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Debra Guarracino alleged that a defective adult undergarment caused her to slip and fall, resulting in serious, permanent injuries and medical expenses. She brought claims involving implied and express warranties, contract, and failure to warn.
The court found that the complaint mostly offered legal conclusions and did not provide enough facts to make any claim plausible. It therefore granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss under the rule governing insufficient pleadings.
Judge Nelson S. Román dismissed the complaint without prejudice and allowed Guarracino to file an amended complaint by July 1, 2025. If she did not amend within that time, the dismissed claims would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Guarracino v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation · No. 7:24-cv-03074
- Nelson Roman
- May 14, 2025
Background
Debra Guarracino sued Kimberly-Clark Corporation over an adult undergarment that she purchased and used on May 31, 2021. She alleged that a defect caused her to slip and fall, and that she suffered serious, permanent personal injuries and medical-treatment expenses. Her complaint asserted claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness, breach of express warranty, breach of contract, and failure to warn.
Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it had to read the complaint generously and accept well-supported factual allegations as true at this stage. But it did not have to accept legal conclusions or bare statements of the elements of a claim.
The court concluded that, apart from stating that she was injured, Guarracino provided no factual allegations explaining the basis for her claims. The complaint repeatedly stated that Kimberly-Clark had breached various warranties and committed other wrongdoing, but did not provide facts supporting those assertions. The court therefore found that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
Ruling and effect
The court granted Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Guarracino was granted leave to file an amended complaint by July 1, 2025. The court stated that any amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and that claims she wished to pursue had to be included in or attached to it. Kimberly-Clark was directed to answer or otherwise respond by July 23, 2025, if an amended complaint was filed. If Guarracino did not file one by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.
The opinion contains inconsistent date information: the supplied case metadata and the conclusion identify May 14, 2025, while the electronic-filing header displays March 14, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.