Jimenez v. Artsana USA, Inc.

On September 23, 2021, Amanda Jimenez (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, represented by Alec Mitchell Leslie of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., filed a class action lawsuit against Artsana USA, Inc. (“Artsana” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive reliefs and damages, along with prejudgement interest and other reliefs, for the alleged misrepresentation of the Defendant’s product to the Plaintiff and the class. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York with Judge Vincent L. Briccetti presiding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Contrary to well-established expert advice, Artsana advertised its Products as safe for children from 30 to 100 pounds, and it touted the company’s proprietary “DuoGuard” protection” and “Specifically, to gain the trust of consumers, Artsana markets its proprietary “DuoGuard” or “DuoZone” protection, which it claims offers two layers of side-impact protection for the head and torso, and the company advertises this feature on its website and on booster seat packaging.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “The thirty (30)-pound minimum weight was specifically intended by Artsana to convince parents to move their small children out of full, safety harness-restrained child car seats and into the Booster Seats, generating profits for Artsana, but endangering children” and “Consumers trust and rely on Artsana’s representations regarding safety and dangerously place children in the Booster Seats who are much too young to ride in them safely.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Plaintiff and consumers have no way of knowing that these representations were false, as Defendant had sole knowledge and control over the testing, development, statements, and marketing of its Products. As a consequence of Artsana’s deceptive marketing and advertising practices, an untold number of children have been harmed and put at risk of harm. Had Artsana disclosed the results of its side-impact testing, no consumer, parent, or family member would have purchased the Booster Seats.”

There are six claims of relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim alleged is for violation of Deceptive Acts or Practices, New York Gen. Bus. Law § 349. The second claim alleged is for False Advertising, New York Gen. Bus. Law § 350. The third claim alleged  is for fraud. The fourth claim alleged is for unjust enrichment. The fifth claim alleged is for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability. The sixth claim alleged is for Breach of Express Warranty.

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court to certify this action as a class action lawsuit and appoint the Plaintiff as the representative of the class. The Plaintiff further requested the Court for declaratory and injunctive reliefs along with compensatory, statutory and punitive damages; prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief as well as an order awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs of suit.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.