Borgese v. Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC

Background

Jon Borgese brought a proposed class action individually, as guardian of L.B., and on behalf of purchasers of Baby Brezza Formula Pro and Formula Pro Advanced machines. He alleged that the machines did not mix formula to the advertised consistency and instead mixed too little formula, resulting in poor nutrition and related injuries. He alleged that his child lost weight, required medical visits, and experienced medical expenses, physical pain, and emotional distress.

The complaint asserted ten causes of action, all under state law. Borgese sought to represent purchasers throughout the United States. Two days before filing this federal case, he filed a nearly identical case in New York state court, except that the proposed state-court class covered New York purchasers.

Class Allegations

The defendants asked the court to strike the class allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court held that the complaint did not provide enough information about where other purchasers lived, where they bought the machines, or where they were injured to determine which state laws applied. Because the complaint did not identify the potentially applicable state laws, the court could not determine whether common legal issues predominated over individualized issues.

The court also found that Borgese had not plausibly alleged the existence of other class members. It rejected his general assertion that subclasses could cure the defects because he did not explain how subclasses would do so. The court further concluded that the proposed class could not proceed under Rule 23(b)(2) because Borgese withdrew his request for injunctive relief and did not seek a declaratory judgment. The court also found that the allegations did not support class treatment under Rule 23(b)(1).

The court therefore granted the motion to strike the class allegations. It did not reach the defendants’ separate argument that some proposed class members lacked standing.

Stay of the Federal Case

The defendants argued that the federal case should be dismissed under the first-filed rule because the state case was filed first. The court rejected that argument because the first-filed rule applies when both cases were filed in federal court, not when the first case was filed in state court.

The court instead considered whether to stay the case under the Colorado River doctrine, which permits a federal court in limited circumstances to pause a duplicative case so that a parallel state case can proceed. The court found the cases parallel because they involved the same named plaintiff, the same defendants, the same ten causes of action, the same alleged conduct, and essentially the same requested relief. After striking the class allegations, the federal case was an individual action that was encompassed by the state case.

The court found that avoiding duplicative litigation and the fact that the claims were based entirely on state law favored a stay. It also found that the state proceeding could adequately protect Borgese’s rights and that the state court was better positioned to address the state-law claims. The court therefore granted the motion to stay the federal action pending resolution of the state-court action.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero ordered that the motion to dismiss be granted as to The Betesh Group, granted the motion to strike the class allegations, and granted the motion to stay the action pending resolution of the parallel New York state-court action. The court did not decide the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) argument that the complaint failed to state a claim. Borgese was ordered to inform the court within 30 days after the state-court action is adjudicated about that resolution and his intent regarding further litigation in the federal case.