In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In McGowan v. The Laundress, Judge Furman granted the warranty motion but allowed design-defect claims to proceed.
Peter Charles McGowan’s express-warranty claim was subject to the granted motion, while his strict-liability and negligence claims based on alleged design defects were allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage. The Laundress, LLC, must answer the remaining claims unless the court orders otherwise.
What happened
Peter Charles McGowan sued The Laundress, LLC, alleging that a contaminated fabric conditioner caused serious sinus problems. He brought strict-liability, negligence, and express-warranty claims under Minnesota law.
The Laundress asked the court to dismiss the strict-liability and negligence claims insofar as they were based on design defects, along with the express-warranty claim. McGowan agreed to give up the express-warranty claim but opposed dismissal of the design-defect claims.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the motion as to the express-warranty claim and otherwise denied it. The court found that McGowan had plausibly alleged specific design defects, including packaging that allegedly failed to protect the product from contamination.
The detailed version
- In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-10667
- Jesse Furman
- June 6, 2025
Background
This case concerns claims brought by Peter Charles McGowan against The Laundress, LLC, after a recall of some Laundress cleaning products because of potential bacterial contamination. McGowan alleges that, in or around September 2022, his wife purchased a Laundress fabric conditioner in Minnesota. He alleges that after using the product, he developed sinus congestion and an upper respiratory tract infection; that mucus samples tested positive for pseudomonas aeruginosa; and that he was later diagnosed with chronic pansinusitis and sinus infections caused by pseudomonas.
McGowan alleges that the fabric conditioner contained harmful bacteria, including Klebsiella aerogenes, Burkholderia cepacia complex, and pseudomonas. His amended complaint asserts strict-liability, negligence, and breach-of-express-warranty claims. The parties agreed that Minnesota law applies.
Motion and Analysis
The Laundress moved under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss McGowan’s strict-liability and negligence claims to the extent they were based on alleged design defects, as well as his express-warranty claim. The Laundress did not move to dismiss claims based on alleged manufacturing defects.
McGowan stated that, based on the briefing, he conceded his express-warranty claim. The court therefore granted the motion as unopposed as to that claim.
The Laundress argued that McGowan had not adequately alleged that the product’s design was unreasonably dangerous, as Minnesota law requires. The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. It explained that McGowan’s complaint identified alleged defects and deviations that could have caused contamination, including an allegation that the fabric conditioner’s packaging did not adequately protect it from contamination and adulteration. The court concluded that these allegations moved the design-defect claims from merely conceivable to plausible. It distinguished cases in which complaints had failed to identify any particular defect.
Disposition
The court granted The Laundress’s motion to dismiss as to McGowan’s express-warranty claim and otherwise denied the motion. Unless the court orders otherwise, The Laundress must answer McGowan’s remaining claims within three weeks of the opinion and order. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 201.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.