O'Neill v. Standard Homeopathic Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue injunctive relief where they are unable to establish a ‘real or immediate threat’ of injury” (quoting Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 239 (2d Cir. 2016))
• finding a concrete economic injury where homeopathic infant medicine was alleged to be unsafe to consume
• dismissing breach of implied warranty claim because pharmacies “cannot be held liable . . . for a safety defect they could not have plausibly discovered”
• “[t]he Court will first address [d]efendants' Mootness and Standing arguments, because they are directed at the Court's jurisdiction.”
• “Moreover, because Plaintiffs do not individually have standing to seek injunctive relief, they do not have standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of a putative … class.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).