Kuhn v. L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc.

Background

Linda Kuhn alleged that a container of Matrix Biolage Dry Shampoo exploded near her foot on May 8, 2017, while she was visiting her daughter’s apartment in San Francisco. Kuhn alleged that the container was unused and remained in the same condition as when purchased. She sought personal-injury damages exceeding $75,000.

The defendants were L’Oreal USA S/D, Inc., Matrix Essentials, LLC, and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc. Kuhn asserted two causes of action: strict products liability and negligent products liability. The defendants moved to dismiss only the strict-products-liability claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Second Amended Complaint improperly grouped the three defendants together. Although it identified Ulta as the retail location where the product was purchased, it generally alleged that all defendants manufactured, designed, tested, assembled, formulated, supplied, distributed, or otherwise handled the product. The complaint did not explain which defendant was responsible for the alleged design or manufacturing defects or the alleged failure to warn. The court concluded that this pleading did not give each defendant fair notice of the conduct attributed to it, as required by Rule 8(a)(2).

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Kuhn’s design- and manufacturing-defect allegations were insufficient merely because they referred to the container, its contents, or its component parts. The court found it sufficient at the pleading stage for Kuhn to allege that the single product—the Matrix Biolage Dry Shampoo container—could explode and contained flammable ingredients such as propane or butane.

The court also found the failure-to-warn allegations sufficient at this stage. Kuhn alleged that the defendants failed to warn consumers that the product, which contained propane or butane, was prone to leak, rupture, or explode while unopened or when used, stored, or handled in a foreseeable manner.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Cause of Action for strict products liability with leave to amend. The amendment had to differentiate the allegations by defendant. The court required any amended complaint to be filed within 28 days of the order. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for the negligent-products-liability claim, which the defendants’ motion did not challenge.