Christiansen v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation

Background

Kim Christiansen alleged that she purchased Cottonelle Flushable Wipes from Target Corporation on October 8, 2020. Kimberly-Clark Corporation designed, manufactured, sold, and marketed the wipes as alternatives to toilet paper. Christiansen alleged that the wipes were contaminated with a bacterium and that, after using them as intended on October 20, 2020, she developed a bacterial infection in the area where she used them and required medical treatment.

Christiansen sued Target and Kimberly-Clark. After the court dismissed her original complaint for insufficient factual allegations, she filed a first amended complaint asserting claims involving breach of warranty, negligence, strict products liability, failure to warn, design defects, and manufacturing defects. Both defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Court’s Analysis

Breach of warranty. The court dismissed the express-warranty claims because Christiansen did not allege the terms of any warranty or her reasonable reliance on one. It also dismissed the implied-warranty-of-fitness-for-a-particular-purpose claims because using the wipes on her body was their ordinary purpose, not a special purpose, and Christiansen did not allege that she relied on either defendant’s skill or judgment in selecting the product.

The court denied the motions to dismiss the implied-warranty-of-merchantability claims against Kimberly-Clark and Target. Christiansen alleged that the bacterium made the wipes unfit for their ordinary use and caused her infection. The court found that these allegations stated the basic elements of a claim that the product failed to meet the minimum quality required for ordinary use.

Negligence-based product claims. The court found that Christiansen did not allege facts showing that either defendant was negligent in making or selling the wipes. It therefore dismissed the negligence-based product claims.

Strict products liability. The court dismissed the design-defect claims because Christiansen did not allege that the design itself was inherently defective and did not identify or support either of California’s recognized design-defect tests.

The court denied Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss the strict-liability manufacturing-defect claim. Christiansen alleged that the wipes contained a bacterium, that they were unaltered from the condition in which they were sold, and that using them caused her infection. The court found these allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to allege that the wipes deviated from their design and that the defect caused her injury.

The court dismissed the failure-to-warn claims because Christiansen did not allege facts showing that the risk was known or scientifically knowable to Target or Kimberly-Clark, or that the failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing her injury. It also dismissed the negligent-failure-to-warn claims because she did not allege negligence by either defendant or that the failure to warn substantially caused her injury.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss the strict-liability manufacturing-defect claim against Kimberly-Clark and the implied-breach-of-warranty-of-merchantability claims against Kimberly-Clark and Target. It dismissed the remaining causes of action with leave to amend. The amended complaint was due April 17, 2024, and the court stated that failure to cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the remaining claims with prejudice. No additional parties or claims could be added without the court’s permission or the defendants’ stipulation.