This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 11/22/2022 at 05:21:11 (UTC).

Yang v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

Case Summary

On November 20, 2022, Cecilia Yang (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Spencer I. Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C., filed a personal property fraud class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking damages for alleged fraud and misrepresentation. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, with Judge Hector Gonzalez presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Defendant manufactures, markets, labels and sells zinc oxide SPF 50 sunscreens in stick format under the Neutrogena brand to babies and adults (‘Products’).” 

Plaintiff further claimed, “Though the two products appear distinct, with the baby variety containing numerous label statements and features absent from the adult version, they are substantively identical, yet sold at dramatically different prices.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Though both contain the standard sunscreen label claims of ‘Broad Spectrum,’ ‘UVA/UVB’ and ‘SPF 50,’ the other differences appear significant, the back label of the Baby version describes it as ‘[an] extra-gentle formula [that] is ideal for baby’s delicate, sensitive skin.’”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant knows that parents prefer products containing natural and pure ingredients, without fragrances, so that their babies’ ‘delicate skin’ will not be irritated. “The result is that parents will pay significantly more for such products, which is why, on a per ounce basis, the Baby version is $16.96, almost two times the price of the Adult version at $8.65.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “Not only do the Products contain the identical amount of the active zinc oxide ingredient at 21.6%, 12 of their 13 inactive ingredients are identical. The only difference is the thirteenth and least predominant ingredient, which is avena sativa (oat) kernel oil in the Baby version and tocopheryl acetate in the Adult version.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and misleading.”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Baby version is sold for twice as much as the Adult version, promoted as specially formulated for use in babies, even though it is almost identical in its composition to the regular version.”

Plaintiff claimed, “Plaintiff believed the Baby version was specifically formulated and designed for the unique needs of babies, when it was not, and was substantially similar to the Adult version.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant’s false, misleading and deceptive representations and omissions are material in that they are likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions. Defendant’s representations affirmed and promised that the Baby version was specifically formulated and designed for the unique needs of babies, while the Adult version, costing half the price, could not provide the same benefits to babies.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and marketing of the Baby version compared to the Adult version. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.”

Plaintiff presented five claims for relief, including alleged violation of New York General Business Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested an award of monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages together with  interest and costs of litigation. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:22-CV-07070

  • Filing Date:

    11/20/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Hector Gonzalez

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Cecilia Yang

Defendant

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Spencer I. Sheehan

Attorney at Sheehan & Associates, P.C.

60 Cuttermill Road Ste 412, 11021

Great Neck, NY 11021

 

Court Documents

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-16156481 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by Cecilia Yang. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons) (Sheehan, Spencer) (Entered: 11/20/2022)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #2

Proposed Summons

#2

(#2) Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (SR) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

#3

(#3) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (SR) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

#4

(#4) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (SR) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

#5

(#5) SCHEDULING ORDER: Counsel for all parties are directed to file on the docket a joint letter describing the case and a completed civil case management plan by January 5, 2023, as further described in the attached mandatory requirements. Requests for adjournment of the deadline for these submissions will be considered only if made in writing and otherwise in accordance with Section I.D of the Court's Individual Practices. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 11/21/2022. (BH) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/21/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) SCHEDULING ORDER: Counsel for all parties are directed to file on the docket a joint letter describing the case and a completed civil case management plan by January 5, 2023, as further described in the attached mandatory requirements. Requests for adjournment of the deadline for these submissions will be considered only if made in writing and otherwise in accordance with Section I.D of the Court's Individual Practices. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 11/21/2022. (BH) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (SR) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (SR) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (SR) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/20/2022
  • DocketCase Assigned to Judge Hector Gonzalez. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (SR) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/20/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-16156481 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by Cecilia Yang. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons) (Sheehan, Spencer) (Entered: 11/20/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Johnson & Johnson is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Spencer Sheehan