Skip to main content
E.D. New York· 10/5/2015

Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co.

Citations

  • 311 F.R.D. 29
  • 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137034
  • 2015 WL 5781541

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that the plaintiff consumers in various class actions “allege that they paid a premium for ‘flusha-ble’ wipes” in part because the wipes were advertised as “flushable”
  • noting that when deciding whether to stay or dismiss, “the paramount concern is that the deferral not work as a time-bar” (quoting Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1996))
  • discussing the preemption of New York’s prohibition on class actions seeking statutory damages by the federal rules
  • referring “[t]he issue of an appropriate definition of ‘flushable’ wipes and related issues” to the FTC and staying the case pending those proceedings
  • staying its decision on class certification, but noting that it “would give favorable consideration to certifying a 23(b)(2
  • finding commonality where plaintiffs alleged a price premium injury stemming from the labeling of wipes as “flushable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Weinstein

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

93 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.