Health Law Daily Wrap Up, FOOD—M.D. Fla.: Nutrition companies avoid shotgun blast in contaminated baby food suit, (Jul 31, 2026)

By Erick Jorgenson

The court sua sponte dismissed the suit, identifying deficiencies relating to subject matter jurisdiction, shotgun pleading practices, and fictitious defendants.

A federal court in Florida has dismissed, sua sponte and without prejudice, a shotgun pleading against Beech-Nut Nutrition Company and various other defendants, finding the consumer failed to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction, relied on an impermissible shotgun pleading structure, and named unidentified fictitious defendants without sufficient descriptive allegations. Amendment to the current pleading, which alleges that Beech-nut's contaminated baby food products caused neurodevelopmental harm and asserted claims for strict products liability and negligence, must establish subject matter jurisdiction and comply with federal pleading requirements to avoid another dismissal (R.H. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., No. 6:26-cv-01470-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2026)).

The complaint, filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; Gerber Products Company; Nestlé USA, Inc.; Nestlé Enterprises S.A.; Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.; and Does 1-10, alleged that the baby food manufacturers knowingly sold products contaminated with toxic heavy metals that are known to cause brain damage and neurodevelopmental harm. According to the allegations, the minor claimant consumed those products, was exposed to the identified contaminants, and suffered resulting harm. The complaint asserted causes of action for strict products liability based on failure to warn, manufacturing defect, and design defect theories, along with claims for negligent failure to warn, negligent manufacturing, negligent product design, and general negligence.

Diversity jurisdiction. The pleading attempted to invoke diversity jurisdiction by alleging that the parties were citizens of different states and by asserting damages exceeding $75,000. The District Court found there was insufficient information to establish complete diversity of the parties as required in the complaint, as the complaint stated only that the claimant currently resided in Orlando, Florida. The court emphasized that residence alone does not establish citizenship for diversity purposes. Instead, citizenship depends on domicile, which requires residence coupled with an intent to remain. Because the complaint alleged only residence and not domicile, the court could not determine the claimant’s citizenship.

The court further found that the jurisdictional deficiencies extended to certain corporate defendants as well, noting that a foreign corporation is considered a citizen of every state and foreign state in which it is incorporated and of the state or foreign state where it maintains its principal place of business. Although the complaint contained allegations concerning some defendants, it did not provide allegations regarding the citizenship of Nestlé Enterprises S.A. and Société Des Produits Nestlé S.A.. As a result, the court could not determine whether complete diversity existed.

Shotgun Pleading. The court found that the complaint constituted the first of four types of shotgun pleadings: “a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts.” In the complaint, the opening paragraph of each count incorporated every prior allegation as though fully restated, making the Complaint "a textbook example of the first category of shotgun pleadings." Exercising its independent obligation to dismiss shotgun pleadings, the court found repleader of the complaint necessary to cure these defects, noting the claimant must specifically identify only the paragraphs relevant to claim at issue when choosing to restate and reallege allegations.

Fictitious defendants. The District Court also found that the Complaint failed to include any allegations describing the "Doe" defendants. While generally fictitious party pleading are not allowed, there is a limited exception when the plaintiff’s description is so specific, that the description is “at the very worst, surplusage.” However, as claimant provided no description of the Does, the Court found that repleader was necessary to either describe who the Does might be for service of process, or to omit entirely the claims against the ten Doe defendants.

The case is No. 6:26-cv-001470-PGB-LHP.

Judge: Byron, P.

Attorneys: Mark Herbert Schlein (Wisner Baum LLP) for Cheyenne North.

Companies: Beech-Nut Nutrition Co.; Gerber Products Co.; Nestle ‘USA’, Inc.; Nestle Enterprises S.A.; Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.

Cases: CaseDecisions FoodNews FoodSafetyNews FloridaNews