Mandel v. Grande Cosmetics, LLC

Background

Alexandra Mandel alleged that Grande Cosmetics did not adequately disclose to consumers that its GrandeLASH-MD, GrandeBROW, and GrandeHAIR products contained isopropyl cloprostenate, or IC. The complaint alleged that IC is a prostaglandin analog associated with serious side effects. Mandel asserted claims under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Law, as well as related unfair-competition and false-advertising claims.

Arguments

Grande Cosmetics moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). It primarily argued that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted Mandel’s California claims. It also argued that Mandel had not adequately alleged reliance and lacked standing to sue concerning similar products that she did not purchase.

Court’s analysis

The court applied a presumption against preemption and relied on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc. The court found that Mandel’s claims were based on state-law duties that parallel federal duties and therefore were not preempted. The court also concluded that the Food and Drug Administration’s silence about IC’s drug status did not prevent California from providing additional protection through state law.

The court rejected Grande Cosmetics’ argument that Allergan was wrongly decided and found that the difference between a competitor’s claim in Allergan and Mandel’s consumer claim did not change the analysis. The court explained that Mandel was suing under state law for conduct that violated the federal law, rather than suing because the conduct violated the federal law.

The court also found that Mandel plausibly alleged reliance. She alleged that she examined the products’ packaging, labeling, and other marketing materials and would not have purchased GrandeLASH-MD if the ingredients and potential side effects had been properly disclosed. The court said these allegations satisfied the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 9(b) and established reliance sufficient for standing under Mandel’s California consumer-protection claims.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that Mandel lacked standing to challenge similar products she did not purchase. It found that the complaint plausibly alleged that IC was present in each accused product and stated that Mandel could sue over similar products at this stage. The court noted that Grande Cosmetics could renew its standing challenge in later proceedings if discovery supported it.

Disposition

The court denied Grande Cosmetics’ motion to dismiss. The opinion did not dismiss the case or state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.