LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Abbott Laboratories’ motion to dismiss a putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court held that Condalisa LeGrand established Article III standing based on her testimony and declaration concerning purchases of Abbott’s Ensure products, despite the absence of receipts. The court also held that she had standing to seek injunctive relief based on an alleged future threat of harm from false or misleading labeling.

Holdings

1. LeGrand established Article III standing because, by a preponderance of the evidence, her testimony and declaration showed that she purchased the challenged Ensure products during the proposed class period, thereby establishing an injury in fact traceable to the alleged labeling and redressable by judicial relief. Receipts were not required to establish standing.
2. LeGrand had standing to seek injunctive relief because the evidence showed a sufficient actual and imminent threat of future harm: she would be unable to rely on Ensure's labeling in the future despite wanting to purchase the product and could reasonably be deceived by the labeling.

Questions Presented

1. Whether LeGrand established Article III standing to pursue her consumer-protection claims despite lacking documentary receipts for the alleged Ensure purchases.
2. Whether LeGrand established standing to seek injunctive relief by showing an actual and imminent threat of future harm from Abbott's labeling.

Disposition

dismissed