Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180330_0000827.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:02:51+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Petrosino v. Stearn's Products, Inc.
Petrosino v. Stearn's Products, Inc.
STEARN'S PRODUCTS, INC. D/B/A DERAE®, Defendants.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Petrosino, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, commenced this action against Steam's Products, Inc., D/B/A Dera E®. (See Amended Compl., ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff brings claims sounding in: (1) violation of New York General Business Law § 349; (2) violation of New York General Business Law § 350; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) violation of state consumer protection statutes; and (5) injunctive relief. Before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), and Defendant's Motion to Stay the case pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part with leave to amend. The Motion to Stay is DENIED in its entirety.
Plaintiff commenced this putative class action suit on August 31, 2016, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, (Notice of Removal, Exh. A, Complaint, ECF No. 1) claiming that Defendant allegedly uses deceptive and misleading labeling on their cosmetic products. (Amended Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 19.) Defendant removed this action on October 3, 2016 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Notice of Removal ¶ 2.) On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint seeking injunctive relief, punitive damages and claiming violations of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and violations of the consumer protection statues of all fifty states.
On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), dismissal of a case is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)). A plaintiff has the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction by preponderance of the evidence. Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2012); Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113). “‘[J]urisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting it.'” Morrison, 547 F.3d at 170 (quoting APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir. 2003)).
On a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, ” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper unless the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); accord Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). “Although for the purposes of a motion to dismiss [a court] must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [it is] ‘not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679.
When there are well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, “a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. A claim is facially plausible when the factual content pleaded allows a court “to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Ultimately, determining whether a complaint states a facially plausible claim upon which relief may be granted must be “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court takes the arguments and claims in turn. Defendant's motion is denied.
A plaintiff fulfills the federal constitutional requirements for Article III standing by alleging an actual case or controversy. Buonasera v. Honest Co., Inc., 208 F.Supp.3d 555, 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). In order to satisfy this jurisdictional requirement, “(1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct at issue; and (3) the injury must be likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 239 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach v. Vill. of Westhampton Beach, 778 F.3d 390, 394 (2d Cir. 2015)). Plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim and form of relief sought. Id. A named Plaintiff seeking to represent a class must abide by these same standing requirements. Id. (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 349
 § 350
 § 1332
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.