2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-26-2010 

# Ruth K oronth al y v . Lore al U SA, Inc. P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4625

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" R uth Kor onth aly v

. L or e al U SA, Inc . " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1628. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1628NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 4625
R U T H K O R O N T H A L Y , ind iv id u a llya n d o n b e h a lf

of al l other s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, A ppel l ant

v. L ' O R E A L U S A , IN C ., a N e w Y o rk C o rp o ra tio n ; T H E P R O C T E R A N D G A M B L E D IS T R IB U T IN G L L C ,

an O hi o C orpor at i on O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 2- 07- cv- 05588) D i s t r i ctJ udge: D enni s M . C avana ugh
A r gued on N ovember10, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 26, 2010) P h il ip A
. T o rt o reti , E sq u ir e D ani el R . L api ns ki , E s qui r e ( A r gue d) Wi l e n t z , Go l ma n & S p i t z e r , P . A. 90 W oodbr i dge C ent erD r i ve Sui t e 900, B ox 10 W oodbr i dge, N J 07095

C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan t R u th K o ro n th a ly2

Scot tL . H aw or t h, E s qui r e ( A r gue d) N o ra C o lem an , E sq u ir e S e d g w ick , D e ter t, M o ra n & A rn o ld 125 B r oad St r eet , 39 Fl oor th N ew Y or k, N Y 10004 A n tho n yJ. A n sco m b e, E sq u ir e Se d g wi c k , Det e r t , M o r a n & Ar n o l d , LLP O ne N or t h W acke rD r i ve, Sui t e 4200 C hi cago, I L 60606 J ames H . K eal e, E s qui r e Se d g wi c k , Det e r t , M o r a n & Ar n o l d , LLP T hr ee G at ew ayC ent er , 12 Fl oor th N ew ark, N J 07102
C o u n s e l f o r A p p e lle e L ’O re a l U S A , In c . M i chae l R . M cD onal d, E s qui r e ( A r gue d) D am ian V
. S an tom au ro, E sq u ir e Gi b b o n s , P . C. O ne G at ew ayC ent er N ew ark, N J 07102- 5310

Cou n s e l f

o rApp e l l e e Th e Pr o c t e r& Gamb l e Di s t r i b u t i n g , LLC

O P I N I O N
RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: R ut h K or ont hal yappea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng defe ndant Pr oct er& G ambl e C om pany ’ s ( “P& G ”) m ot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(1 ) fo r l ac k o f stan d ing an d d ef en d an t L ’O rea l U S A , Inc . ’s3

( “L’O r eal ”) m ot i on t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o R ul e 12( b) ( 6)
. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew o v e r a g ra n t o f

a m o tio n to d ism iss f

o r la c k o f

sta n d in g a n d re v iew th e f a c tu a l ele m e n ts
u n d e rl y in g th e s ta n d in g d e te rm in a tio n f o r c le a r e rr o r. G oode v. C i t y of P hi l a. , 539 F. 3d 311, 316 ( 3d C i r . 2008)
. T he bur den of pr ovi ng eac h s t andi ng el ementr es t s w i t h t he p la in tif f
. D anver

s Mot orC o. , I

nc. v. For d MotorC o. , 4 3 2 F .3 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). We a s s u me t h e p a r t i e s ’ f a mi l i a r i t ywi t h th e f

a c tu a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y , wh i c h we d esc ri b e o n lyas n ec essa ryto ex p lai n o u r de cisi o n . W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s
o rd e r. K or ont hal ypur chas ed l i ps t i ck pr oduct s m anufa ctur ed, m arket ed, and di s t r i but ed byappel l ees L ’ O r eal
. and P& G . T hes e l i ps t i ck pr oduct s cont ai n l ead. T he FD A does not
r egul at e the pr es ence of l ead i n l i ps t i ck, butK or onthal yas s ert s thatthe l i ps t i ck cont ai ns l ead i n fargr eat eramount s t han perm i t t ed i n candybythe FD A . N ei t herthe pac kagi ng nort he pr oduct s t hemsel ves cont ai ned anyi ndi cat i on thatthe l i ps t i ck cont ai ned anyl ead. K or ont hal ydi d notknow w hen s he pur chas ed the pr oduct s thattheycont ai ned any le a d , a n d w h e n s h e le a rn e d o f th e le a d c o n te n t s h e im m e d ia te ly sto p p e d u s in g th e m . M oreove r, had she kn ow n o f t he lead she w ou l d n ot have p urchased the produ ct s. In N o v em b er 2 0 0 7 , K o ron thalyfil ed a c lass ac ti o n co m p lai n t i n the D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . She i nvoked the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on underthe C l as s A ct i on Fai r nes s A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1332( d) ( 2)
. A ft eri tw as amended i n M ar ch 2008, h e r c o m p lain t as se rte d c laim s f o r: (1 ) v io latio n o f

th e N e w Je rse yC o n su m e r F ra u d A c t,4

N . J . S. A . § 56: 8- 1 ets eq. ; ( 2) br eac h of i m pl i ed w arr antyunderthe N ew J er s eyU C C ; ( 3) b re a c h o f

im p lie d w a rr a n ty u n d e r t h e M a g n u s o n -M o s s W a rr a n ty A c t, 1 5 U .S .C . § 2310( d) ( 1) ; ( 4) s t r i ctl i abi l i t y ; ( 5) negl i gence pers e; ( 6) unj us tenr i chment ; and ( 7) in ju n c tiv e re lie f
. L ’ O r eal and P& G fi l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) and 12 (b) (1) , res pecti vely
. O n July25 , 20 08 , the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed those m oti on s, fi ndi ng t hatK or ont hal yl acke d s t andi ng t o pur s ue the ac t i on. O n O ct ober24, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed K or ont hal y ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, and herm ot i on forl eave to f ile a se c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. K o ro n th a lyth e n f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. T o pr ove cons t i tut i onal s t andi ng, K or onthal ym us tdemonstr at e ( 1) an i nj ury - i nfac tt hati s actual ori m m i nentand conc r et e and pa rt i cul ar i zed, notconj ectur al or h yp o th e tica l, (2 ) th a t is f a irlytra c e a b le to th e d e f e n d a n t’s c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t, an d (3 ) is lik e ly to b e re d re s s e d b ya f a v o ra b le ju d ic ia l d e c is io n . S u m m e rs v . E a rth Isla n d In st. , --- U . S . -- -, 12 9 S . C t . 11 42 , 11 49 (2009 ). In this case, st and i ng fou nd ers on the fir st
re q u ire m e n t, i n

ju ry -in -f a c t. K or ont hal y ’ s ar gum entt hats he w as m i s l ed i nt o pur chas i ng uns afe l i ps t i ck produ ct s i s bel i ed b yt he F D A ’s reportfi nd i ng that the lead l evels i n the D efen dan t s’ li p sti ck s w ere n o t dan g ero u s an d there fo re d id n o t r eq u ir e w arn ing s. M o reo v er, K or ont hal yconce des t hats he has s uffe r ed no adve r s e hea l t h eff ect s fr om us i ng the l i ps t i cks
. K or ont hal yt her efor e has as s ert ed onl ya s ubj ect i ve al l egat i on thatthe tr ace5

a m o u n ts o f

lea d in th e lip stic k s a re u n a c c e p tab le to h e r, n o t an in ju ry -in -f a c t su f f icie n t to
c o n f e r A rt ic le II I s ta n d in g . S e e L u ja n v . D e fen d e rs o f W ild lif e , 504 U . S. 555, 564 ( 1992) ( i nj ur y - i n- fac tm us tbe ac compani ed by“cont i nui ng, pr es entadver s e ef fec t s ”) ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ); G eor

gi ne v. A m chem P r ods
. , I nc. , 8 3 F .3 d 6 1 0 , 6 3 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( W e llf o rd , J ., concurr i ng) ( “Fearand appr ehens i on abouta pos s i bl e futur e phy s i cal orm edi cal
c o n s e q u e n c e . . . i s n o te n o u g h t o e s t a b l i s h a n i n j u r y i n f act .” ). Fur t herm or e, t o t he ext entt hatK or ont hal ycont ends thatthe i nj ury - i n- fac tw as t he lo s s o f h e r “ b e n e f

it o f th e b a rg a in ,” s h e m is ta k e n ly re lie s o n c o n tr a c t la w . See Ri ver a v. W yeth-A yerst

L ab s. , 2 8 3 F .3 d 3 1 5 , 3 1 9 -2 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (p lain tiff , w h o se o n lyc laim
w a s th a t sh e “ w o u ld lik e h e r m o n e yb a c k ” f o r h a v in g p u rc h a se d a p ro d u c t th a t f a iled to
m ake c er t ai n di s cl os ur es and al l egedl yw as defe ct i ve, di d nothave a n i nj ury - i n- fac t
s uffi ci entt o cr eat e s t andi ng)
. H erl i ps t i ck pur chas es w er e notm ade pur s uantt o a contr act , and ther efor e s he coul d nothave be en deni ed the bene fi tof anybar gai n. A bs ent anyal l egat i on t hats he r ece i ved a pr oductthatfai l ed t o w or k fori t s i nt ended purpos e or
w as w or t h obj ect i vel yl es s t han w hatone coul d r eas onabl yexpec t , K or onthal yhas not d e m o n s tr a te d a c o n c re te in ju ry-in -f a c t. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng th e D e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s .