Pastrana v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Background

Christina Silvia Pastrana brought a product-liability action against Colgate-Palmolive Company. She alleged that she purchased and used Fabuloso Multi-Purpose Cleaner, including bottles marked with Lot Number 2348US78, to clean her home and salon. After hip-replacement surgery, she alleged that she and her husband took extra care to sanitize their home and used the cleaner during that period.

Pastrana alleged that she later required a procedure involving her hip replacement, and that cultures from the procedure tested positive for pseudomonas aeruginosa. She further alleged that she was diagnosed with a pseudomonas infection, suffered anaphylaxis shock, and required intubation. Colgate recalled more than 4.9 million Fabuloso Multi-Purpose Cleaners on or about February 8, 2023, because of contamination with pseudomonas species bacteria. The recall notice warned that bacteria from contaminated products could enter the body if inhaled, through the eyes, or through a break in the skin. Pastrana alleged that her product was contaminated and that she became ill from exposure to pseudomonas through its use.

Pastrana asserted defective-product claims under strict-liability and negligence theories, as well as claims for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Motion and Legal Standard

Colgate moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Colgate argued that the complaint did not provide enough detail to show that Pastrana purchased or used one of the products covered by the recall.

For purposes of the motion, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Pastrana’s favor. The complaint had to contain enough factual matter to make her claims plausible, rather than merely asserting legal conclusions.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Illinois law. It explained that, under New York’s choice-of-law rules for a product-liability tort, the relevant location is generally where the injury occurred, rather than where the product was manufactured. Under Illinois law, a strict-liability claim requires allegations that an injury resulted from a condition in the product, that the condition was unreasonably dangerous, and that the condition existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control.

The court concluded that Pastrana adequately identified the allegedly defective product. The amended complaint alleged that she used Fabuloso Multi-Purpose Cleaner, that the product was marked with Lot Number 2348US78, and that this lot number appeared on Colgate’s recall notice. These allegations were sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Disposition

The court denied Colgate-Palmolive Company’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 30.