Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-23-01738/USCOURTS-ca3-23-01738-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 23-1738

_____________

MATTHEW SCHMITT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Appellant

v.

NEWELL BRANDS INC.; GRACO CHILDRENS PRODUCTS, INC.

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 3:20-cv-16240)

District Judge: Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi

_______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

October 1, 2024

Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 9, 2025)

_______________

OPINION

_______________

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 23-1738 Document: 32 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2025
2

MATEY, Circuit Judge.

Matthew Schmitt bought a car seat manufactured by Newell and Graco, intending 

to use the seat for the entire decade of its warranty life. When Schmitt realized that the 

car seat would require a replacement before the end of its warranty life, he sued for 

money damages and injunctive relief. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss and, finding no error, we will affirm.

I.

In August 2020, Schmitt bought a “SlimFitTM Platinum 3-in-1 Car Seat”

manufactured by the Defendants, “intending to use it for ten years, not only for his 

current child, but with hopes of utilizing it for future children as well.” App. 31. The 

accompanying manual instructs consumers to “STOP using this car seat and throw it 

away 10 years after the date of manufacture,” a warning reiterated on Graco’s website, 

advising that “[c]ar seats can be used safely only for a defined period of time, typically 7 

to 10 years.” App. 31 (alteration in original). Graco advertises that a different product, the 

“4Ever All-in-1 Convertible Car Seat,” will “giv[e] you 10 years with one car seat.” App. 

31. But that is not the car seat Schmitt purchased.

When Schmitt received his purchase, it was affixed with a sticker indicating that it 

was manufactured in March 2019. Schmitt claims the gap between manufacture and sale 

cut some 15% from the value because it deprived him from using the car seat for the 

entire ten-years he anticipated. Displeased, Schmitt filed a putative class action lawsuit 

against the Defendants, alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. 

Case: 23-1738 Document: 32 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2025
3

Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1 et seq., negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment,

seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The District Court granted the 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Schmitt lacked standing to seek monetary 

damages or injunctive relief. Schmitt now appeals.1

II.

A.

Our analysis begins, and ends, with standing, the requirement that a plaintiff “must 

show that []he has suffered, or will suffer, an injury that is ‘concrete, particularized, and 

actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a 

favorable ruling.’” Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 57 (2024) (quoting Clapper v. 

Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013)). This “injury must be actual or imminent, 

not speculative.” Food & Drug Admin. v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 381

(2024).

Schmitt’s alleged injury stems from the reduced value of the car seat due to his 

inability to use the car seat for his “current child” and any “future children” during the 

full ten year-period after his purchase.2 App. 31. Because of the delay between the 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss, 

Borough of Longport v. Netflix, Inc., 94 F.4th 303, 306 (3d Cir. 2024) and “may affirm 

on any ground supported by the record,” Beasley v. Howard, 14 F.4th 226, 231 (3d Cir. 

2021). “[W]e accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint, and draw all 

reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Host Int’l, Inc. v. MarketPlace, PHL, LLC, 

32 F.4th 242, 248 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Phila. Taxi Ass’n, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 886 

F.3d 332, 338 (3d Cir. 2018)). 

2 Schmitt does not allege that the car seat presently suffers from a defect. 

Case: 23-1738 Document: 32 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2025
4

manufacture date and Schmitt’s date of purchase, Schmitt’s car seat will expire in March 

2029, rather than August 2030. On this ten-year timeline, Schmitt’s need for the car seat 

past the end of this decade will not “be likely to occur soon.” All. for Hippocratic Med., 

602 U.S. at 381 (citing Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409); see also Thorne v. Pep Boys Manny 

Moe & Jack Inc., 980 F.3d 879, 887 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that “uncertain future 

events do not make [a product] worth less at the time of purchase”). Nor has Schmitt 

shown that his future need for the car seat is “certainly impending,” Clemens v. 

ExecuPharm Inc., 48 F.4th 146, 152 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Susan B. Anthony List v. 

Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014)), because his daughter will have outgrown the seat 

by 2029, and Schmitt does not currently have any other children. As Schmitt cannot 

demonstrate an actual or imminent injury, he lacks standing to pursue monetary 

damages.3

B.

Nor can Schmitt sustain his claim for injunctive relief. Since “standing is not 

dispensed in gross,” Schmitt “must demonstrate standing . . . for each form of relief that

[he] seek[s].” Murthy, 603 U.S. at 61 (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 

413, 431 (2021)). “[A] party seeking prospective relief ‘must allege facts from which it 

appears there is a substantial likelihood that he will suffer injury in the future.’” Durham 

3 Having determined that Schmitt’s standing is foreclosed by his lack of an actual 

or imminent injury, we decline to consider whether his claims could proceed absent a 

contract.

Case: 23-1738 Document: 32 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/09/2025
5

v. Kelley, 82 F.4th 217, 226 (3d Cir. 2023) (quoting Bauer v. Texas, 341 F.3d 352, 358 

(5th Cir. 2003)).

Schmitt sought injunctive relief because he “would like to be able to purchase a 

Graco Car Seat in the future, but would like to be able to know what the useful life of the 

product he is purchasing is.” App. 35. He has since clarified that he would not suffer any 

“future injury.” Opening Br. at 11 n.1. Absent a future injury, Schmitt does not have 

standing to seek injunctive relief.

* * * *

The District Court did not err in granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. So 

we will affirm.

Case: 23-1738 Document: 32 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/09/2025