Full text
Deliotte v. L'Oreal Usa, Inc.
Deliotte v L'Oreal Usa, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31193(U) April 9, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 156144/2024 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
INDEX NO. 156144/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice -----------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 156144/2024 NATHAN DELIOTTE, Individually and as Administrator of MOTION DATE 11/14/2024 the ESTATE OF GLORIA DELIOTTE, Deceased
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 011
- V -
L'OREAL USA, INC.,L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC.,SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC,STRENGTH OF NATURE, LLC,GODREJ SON HOLDINGS, INC.,LUSTER PRODUCTS COMPANY, NAMASTE LABORATORIES, LLC D/B/A ORGANIC ROOT STIMULATOR, BEAUTY BELL DECISION + ORDER ON ENTERPRISE D/B/A HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, INC. AND MOTION HOUSE OF CHEATHAM LLC,HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, LLC,BEAUTY KINGDOM USA CORP., BEAUTY PLUS BEAUTY SUPPLY STORE INC.,WOW BEAUTY SUPPLY INC.
Defendants. ---------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 011) 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 131, 138 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS
Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of January 28, 2025,
Plaintiff Nathan Deliotte, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Gloria Deliotte's,
("Plaintiff') motion seeking leave to amend his Complaint is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
Gloria Deliotte ("Decedent") frequently used hair relaxers allegedly produced,
manufactured, and sold by the numerous Defendants. These products allegedly caused her
uterine/endometrial cancer. Plaintiff alleges Defendants' products contained numerous endocrine-
disrupting chemicals which when applied to the scalp greatly increased the risk of developing
gynecological cancer, and that Defendants failed to warn consumers about these chemical
156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 011
[* 1] 1 of 5
INDEX NO. 156144/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
ingredients. Plaintiff sues Defendants for damages related to Decedent's cancer based on numerous
theories of liability.
Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve a Second Amended Complaint to include Defendants
House of Cheatham, LLC and Beauty Bell Enterprises, LLC d/b/a House of Cheatham, Inc.
(collectively "House of Cheatham Defendants") and Namaste Laboratories, LLC ("Namaste") in
the heading of his first cause of action alleging Strict Liability - Design and/or Manufacturing
Defect, and the heading of his fourth cause of action Negligence - Design and/or Manufacturing
Defect. Plaintiff also seeks leave to include an allegation that the lfouse of Cheatham Defendants
developed, tested, assembled, marketed, manufactured, and sold chemical hair relaxer products
known to the House of Cheatham Defendants, but unknown to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Decedent,
that contained endocrine disrupting chemicals. Plaintiff claims the amendments are needed to
correct typographical errors. The House of Cheatham Defendants and Namaste oppose the motion.
II. Discussion
Leave to amend pleadings is freely granted in the absence of prejudice if the proposed
amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law (Mashinksy v Drescher, 188 AD3d 465
[1st Dept 2020]). A party opposing a motion to amend must demonstrate that it would be
substantially prejudiced by the amendment, or the amendments are patently devoid of merit
(Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 298 AD2d 180, 181
[1st Dept 2002]). Delay alone is not sufficient to deny leave to amend (Johnson v Montefiore
Medical Center, 203 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2022]).
Given this liberal standard, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to assert design defect claims
against Namaste and the House of Cheatham Defendants and is granted leave to include the
requested factual allegation paragraph against the House of Cheatham Defendants. There is no
156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 011
[* 2] 2 of 5
INDEX NO. 156144/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
showing of prejudice as this case is still in its infancy, with little to no discovery taking place and
oral argument scheduled on multiple pre-answer motions to dismiss to take place in May of 2025.
Moreover, the proposed amendments seeking to assert design defect claims are not patently
devoid of merit. The House of Cheatham Defendants and Namaste only oppose amendment based
on the sufficiency of the allegations. However, as long held by the Court of Appeals, a design
defect claim arises when a product is "unreasonably dangerous for its intended use" or "whose
utility does not outweigh the danger inherent in its introduction into the stream of
commerce." (Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 NY2d 102, 107 [1983]). Plaintiff explicitly
alleges that The House of Cheatham Defendants and Namaste hair relaxer products were
unreasonably dangerous because they contained toxic ingredients which increase the risk of
cancer. Given the lenient standard on a motion seeking leave to amend, these proposed allegations
are sufficient to grant leave to amend.
However, the motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert manufacturing defect
claims against The House of Cheatham Defendants and N amaste. A cause of action alleging design
defect is distinct from a manufacturing defect claim, and a review of the allegations in the second
and fourth causes of action clarify that Plaintiff is only alleging causes of action based on design
defect, even though the headings state "Design and/or Manufacturing Defect." Indeed, to allege a
manufacturing defect claim, there must be allegations that there was a mistake or error during the
manufacturing process which made a product defective (Narvaez v Wadsworth, 58 Misc.3d
12229[A] at 7 [Sup. Ct., Bx Cty, 2018] citing Fitzpatrickv Currie, 52 AD3d 1089, 1090 [3d Dept
2008]). Here, there are no allegations that the products used were manufactured defectively- rather
Plaintiff alleges the products were designed defectively by including dangerous ingredients and
156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 011
[* 3] 3 of 5
INDEX NO. 156144/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
failing to warn consumers about the dangers of those ingredients. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff
seeks leave to amend to assert claims of manufacturing defect, leave is denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his First Amended Complaint is
granted, in part, as follows: leave is granted to amend the first, and fourth causes of action solely
to the extent they allege design defect claims against Defendants House of Cheatham, LLC, Beauty
Bell Enterprises, LLC d/b/a House of Cheatham, Inc. and Namaste Laboratories, LLC, and leave
is further granted to the extent Plaintiff may amend the First Amended Complaint to include the
factual allegations found in paragraph 93 of NYSCEF Doc. 105, and to this extent the proposed
amended complaint in the form annexed to the moving papers shall be deemed served upon service
of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that leave to amend the complaint is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave
to assert manufacturing defect claims against Defendants House of Cheatham, LLC, Beauty Bell
Enterprises, LLC d/b/a House of Cheatham, Inc. and Namaste Laboratories, LLC in Plaintiffs first
and fourth causes of action, and the words "and/or manufacturing" shall be stricken from the
headings of those causes of action; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall answer the amended complaint or otherwise respond
thereto within 20 days from the date of said service; 1 and it is further
[This space is intentionally left blank.]
1 As there are numerous motions to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint scheduled to be heard on May 6, 2025, the parties shall file letter correspondence on NYSCEF and e-mail the Court at SFC-Part33-Clerk@nycourts.gov within twenty days of this Decision and Order whether they are withdrawing their motions to dismiss or whether they elect to direct the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint towards the Second Amended Complaint (see, e.g. Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose LLP, 251 AD2d 35, 38 [1st Dept 1998]) 156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 011
INDEX NO. 156144/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 171 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2025
Footnotes
[4] of 5 [* 4] ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 4/9/2025 DATE ARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION □ DENIED □ GRANTED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER □ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 156144/2024 DELIOTTE, NATHAN vs. L'OREAL USA, INC. ET AL Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 011
[5] of 5 [* 5]