Quinn v. Proctor & Gamble Co.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Writing for the Court: HON. JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: 24-CV-856 JLS (SBC)
• Decision Date: 05 January 2026
• Citation: Quinn v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 24-CV-856 JLS (SBC) (S.D. Cal. Jan 05, 2026)
• Parties: THAYLIA DONNA QUINN, individually, Plaintiff, v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO.; WALMART STORES, INC.; TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

1

THAYLIA DONNA QUINN, individually, Plaintiff, v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO.; WALMART STORES, INC.; TARGET CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

No. 24-CV-856 JLS (SBC)

United States District Court, S.D. California

January 5, 2026

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF NO. 23)

HON JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently before the Court are Defendants Procter & Gamble Co.'s (“P&G”), WalMart Inc.'s, and Target Corporation's (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 23). Plaintiff Thaylia Donna Quinn filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (“Opp'n,” ECF No. 26), to which Defendants filed a Reply in Support of the Motion (“Reply,” ECF No. 27). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 21), the Parties' arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a resident of Murrieta, California, who “habitually purchased Herbal Essence-branded [dry shampoo] from Walmart and Target in San Diego County throughout the past decade.” FAC ¶ 20. Specifically, Plaintiff purchased the “Herbal Essences White Grapefruit & Mint Dry Shampoo and Herbal Essences Cucumber & Green Tea Dry Shampoo Personal Injury Products.” Id. The Herbal Essences Brand has been in stores since 1971 and was acquired by P&G, “a global leader in the manufacturing, distributing, and sale of personal care products,” in 2001. Id. ¶¶ 34, 38. After acquiring Herbal Essences, “P&G expanded the Herbal Essences Brand into aerosol spray shampoos and conditioners, including the Herbal Essences White Grapefruit & Mint Dry Shampoo and Herbal Essences Cucumber & Green Tea Dry Shampoo Personal Injury Products,” the health care products (“Products”) at the center of this dispute. Id. ¶ 38.

In reliance on P&G's “size and sterling reputation, [which] instantly lends credibility to [its] product line,” id. ¶ 35, Plaintiff “used P&G's personal care products for decades,” id. ¶ 6. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, however, was the alleged presence of “significant and unsafe levels of benzene-a known human carcinogen”-in the Products manufactured by P&G. Id. ¶ 45. Particularly susceptible to benzene, says Plaintiff, are the underarms and scalp, of which the “outermost layer of the skin is thinner and less protective.” Id. ¶ 3. This outermost layer, or the stratum corneum, is critical to wellbeing as it “provides a barrier that protects against unwanted chemicals passing through the skin, into the bloodstream or lymphatic system and, ultimately, the internal organs.” Id. ¶ 2. One such unwanted chemical is benzene. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff blames the benzene allegedly found in the Products for the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (“CLL”) and bone marrow cancer of which she now suffers. Id. ¶ 6.

Generally speaking, several voices from the scientific community support the contention that exposure to benzene-“a colorless or light-yellow liquid at room temperature”-is “detrimental to human health.” Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Plaintiff cites a plethora of governmental agencies and other entities that have reached this conclusion. For example, the “World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) have classified benzene as a Group 1 compound that is carcinogenic to humans.” Id. ¶ 28. The United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has similarly labeled benzene a “Class 1 solvent,” which means that it “should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products because of [its] unacceptable toxicity.” Id. ¶ 29. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the American Petroleum Institute, and multiple academic studies also favor a risk-averse approach, with one 2010 study commenting that “[t]here is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk.” Id. ¶¶ 30-31. That said, the jury is out as far as what level of benzene exposure is tolerable, as the FDA does permit the use of Class 1 solvents “if their use is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance,” in which case the solvents should be restricted to two parts per million (“ppm”). Id. ¶ 29.

The State of California has taken precautionary measures with respect to benzene and other like chemicals beyond those taken at the federal level, two of which Plaintiff highlights in her Amended Complaint. First, Plaintiff cites the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 (“CSCA”). See id. ¶¶ 43-55. Under the CSCA, manufacturers of cosmetic products containing “a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity” must make certain public disclosures. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 111792(a). Because it has been “given an overall carcinogenicity evaluation of Group 1, Group 2A, or Group 2B by the [IARC],” benzene fits the mold. Id. § 111791.5(b)(2). Plaintiff alleges that P&G has violated the CSCA because it “has never reported the significant and unsafe levels of benzene in any of [its] cosmetic products ....” FAC ¶ 51. Second, Plaintiff cites

Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), which prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing consumers to chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without adequate warnings. See id. ¶¶ 56-59 (citing CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 25249.5, et seq.). As she does above with respect to the CSCA, Plaintiff alleges that P&G has violated Prop 65 by declining to provide the required warnings despite exposing the public to benzene from the Products. Id. ¶ 58.

To support her claim that P&G's Products contain some amount of benzene, Plaintiff relies on two data points. First, Plaintiff alleges that “[s]everal of the [Products] were independently tested and shown to contain dangerous levels of benzene, a known human carcinogen.” Id. ¶ 7. Though Plaintiff does not crisply define this independent testing, she later references the so-called Valisure Tests, which revealed that the Products “contain some of the highest concentrations of benzene in the cosmetics industry.” Id. ¶ 52. Second, Plaintiff pinpoints a P&G “recall of certain dry conditioner and shampoo products ‘from Herbal Essences due to the presence of benzene,'” including the relevant Products. Id. ¶ 41. According to Plaintiff, this recall, which took place on December 17, 2021, provides evidence that “P&G was well aware that they were exposing individuals to benzene at levels requiring a warning under [Prop 65].” Id. ¶ 59. Plaintiff alleges that these indicators, coupled together with “the longstanding recommendations of the scientific community extolling the dangerousness of benzene exposure,” demonstrate that “Defendants were aware well in advance of placing the [Products] into the stream of commerce that they were prone to unreasonably high rates of benzene presence,” but they “knowingly failed to take any action to correct the defects in the [Products], including failing to warn or otherwise educate the public,” “in order to advance their pecuniary gains.” Id. ¶¶ 61-66.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff brought this action on November 9, 2023, in the Superior Court of the State of California (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1 Ex. A). After service of the Complaint on April 18, 2024, Defendants timely removed the case to this Court on May 15, 2024. See ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff asserted six causes of action, all under California state law: (1) negligence, (2) failure to warn, (3) design defect, (4) manufacturing defect, (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (6) fraudulent concealment. See Compl. Defendants filed the first Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on June 17, 2024, seeking dismissal of all claims. See ECF No. 14.

On February 6, 2025, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (“Order,” ECF No. 20) and allowed Plaintiff leave to amend. While the Court found that Plaintiff had satisfied her pleading requirement regarding being exposed to enough benzene levels to cause her disease, Order at 10-12, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to “allege which Herbal Essences products she actually purchased and used,” id. at 21. The Court, relying on Bowen v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 188 F.4th 1134 (9th Cir. 2024), clarified that “Plaintiff need not allege the batch or lot numbers from which the products she purchased are from.” Order at 21 n.4. But rather, “[i]t is enough for Plaintiff to identify the product(s) by name.” Id. Regarding Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim, the Court found the heightened pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) unsatisfied. Id. at 23. The Court held that, “[a]lthough the Complaint alleges that ‘P&G knowingly falsified their test results, ignored and suppressed data, abdicated their responsibility to test, and/or further falsely mischaracterized adverse test data,' it does not allege who falsified the test results, when and where the test results were falsified, or how they were falsified.” Id. The Court further noted that, while Plaintiff asserted this claim against all Defendants, she alleged “no facts whatsoever to suggest that either Walmart or Target had any involvement in the alleged concealment.” Id.

On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the same six causes of action, except bringing the fraudulent concealment claim against only P&G. See FAC. On March 13, 2025, Defendants filed the current Motion requesting Judicial Notice of “the FDA website cited by Defendants” and attacking Plaintiff's FAC on multiple grounds. See Mot.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants reque...