Bodunde v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in an action brought by Olabisi Bodunde and Monica Bolyard against Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. The court granted Walgreens’s motion to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), finding that the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn theory was preempted and that their parallel state-law theories were insufficiently pleaded. The dismissal was with leave to amend within 30 days, while the remaining grounds for dismissal were denied as moot.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs had standing to assert claims for economic harm based on the alleged risk of benzoyl peroxide degradation, although they failed to plead those claims sufficiently.
2. Claims based on a theory that Defendant failed to warn or disclose the risk of benzoyl peroxide degradation were categorically preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including the applicable over-the-counter acne-drug monograph.
3. Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead claims alleging that Defendant sold adulterated or misbranded products based on state duties parallel to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the acne-drug monograph, and current good manufacturing practices.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded standing for claims based on alleged economic harm from the risk of benzoyl peroxide degradation.
2. Whether Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn and failure-to-disclose claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the applicable over-the-counter acne-drug monograph.
3. Whether Plaintiffs adequately stated claims alleging that Defendant sold adulterated or misbranded products in violation of state duties parallel to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and current good manufacturing practices.
4. Whether the first amended complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), with leave to amend.

Disposition

other