Rosenberg v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc.

Rosenberg v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc.

Opinion

ORDER

This case challenges labeling claims that certain Windex products are "non-toxic." On June 8, 2020, four purchasers of Windex products (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a class action complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)¹ alleging (1) violations of Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA") and (2) unjust enrichment. (Docket #1). On September 28, 2020, SC Johnson & Son, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. (Docket #4). On October 19, 2020, in lieu of an opposition, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which alleges the same two causes of action but included additional facts. (Docket #12). Again, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss that complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction, [*2]  failure to state a claim, and failure to allege fraud or mistake with sufficient particularity. (Docket #14). That motion is now fully briefed.² The first motion to dismiss (Docket #4) will be denied as moot; the second motion to dismiss (Docket #14) will be granted with leave to amend for the reasons explained below.

1. LEGAL STANDARDS

1.1 Rule 12(b)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal of a case where the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. When faced with a jurisdictional challenge, the Court accepts as true the well-pleaded factual allegations found in the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ctr. for Dermatology & Skin Cancer, Ltd. v. Burwell, 770 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2017). In this context, the Court may also consider extrinsic evidence adduced by the parties. Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456, 468 (7th Cir. 2003).

1.2 Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.