Jowanna Hudson v. The Boppy Company, LLC

Charleston, South Carolina personal injury class action lawyers represented the Plaintiff wo sued on breach of warranty and unjust enrichment theories



There was a national recall of newborn lounger pillows in 2021 after eight infant deaths revealed safety risks from this product.



Hudson filed a putative class action lawsuit against Boppy in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Hudson alleged that, although Boppy's newborn lounger products were sold widely across America, three million of these loungers were voluntarily recalled in 2021 by Boppy and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) after eight infant deaths related to use of the product were uncovered. Hudson pointed to reports of babies potentially suffocating if placed in the loungers on their backs, sides, or stomachs. She contended that Boppy misled millions of Americans into buying the loungers by falsely claiming that the product was safe. Based on these allegations, Hudson asserted four claims for relief against Boppy: one claim for breach of express warranty, two claims for breach of implied warranties, and one claim for unjust enrichment.



* * *



The district court granted Boppy's motion and dismissed Hudson's Complaint against Boppy with prejudice. In the dismissal order, the district court analyzed the Complaint under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It rejected Hudson's "one central allegation” – i.e., that she "and

the members of her purported class were misled by Boppy's advertising” and never would have purchased the Boppy newborn lounger "had they been aware of [its] safety issues.” App. at 80. Instead, it held that Hudson failed to allege any facts or statements beyond mere puffery (which is not actionable) and to advance past the motion to dismiss, Hudson needed to

allege that Boppy made false or misleading statements of fact. The district court further held that Boppy's express warnings on the product packaging contradicted the generic statements of safety published on Boppy's website, independently defeating all of Hudson's claims for relief.

Motion to dismiss granted.



Affirmed