1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 GRACE NAVARRO and CHATHAM Case No. 1:24-cv-00290-JLT-SAB MULLINS, on behalf of themselves, and all 11 others similarly situated, and the general ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND public, et al., RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 12 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., 15 and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 Grace Navarro and Chatham Mullins commenced this action on March 8, 2024, against 18 Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. Defendant then moved to dismiss this action for lack of standing 19 and failure to state a claim (Doc. 13), and in support requested judicial notice of the Valisure 20 Citizen Petition on Benzene in Benzoyl Peroxide Drug Products upon which Plaintiffs rely 21 (Docs. 14, 14-1).1 The Court referred the motion to the assigned magistrate judge for the 22 preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. 26). The magistrate judge issued findings 23 and recommendations that the motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. 38). The Court served the 24 findings and recommendations served on the parties and notified them that any objections to the 25 findings and recommendations were to be filed within 14 days from the date of service. (Id. at 26 29). Plaintiffs filed timely objections. (Doc. 39). Defendant filed a response to Plaintiffs’ 27 1 objections. (Doc. 40; see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 304(d)). 2 As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiffs have standing to assert claims for economic 3 harm raised by the alleged risk of BPO degradation but fail sufficiently to do so. For example, 4 claims based on a theory of failure to warn/disclose BPO degradation risk are categorically 5 preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) including the OTC drug monograph 6 for topical acne drug products (Acne Monograph).2 (See Doc. 38 at 3, citing Final Monograph, 7

-01,

). Even if Plaintiffs could show standing to assert claims 8 alleging the sale of adulterated and misbranded product contaminated with benzene--based on 9 the theory Defendant failed to comply with state duties parallel to the FDCA including the Acne 10 Monograph and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP)--they fail sufficiently to do so. 11 Plaintiffs’ objections are not persuasive. Plaintiffs assert parallel state duties and third- 12 party free speech rights that assume benzene adulteration. However, Plaintiffs have not made a 13 colorable showing the product they purchased from Defendant contained benzene due to a failure 14 to follow cGMP or otherwise.3 15 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 16 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 17 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 18 the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 38) issued on May 15, 2025, are 20 ADOPTED IN FULL.4 21 2. The motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) is GRANTED with leave 22 to amend. 23 ///

24 2 The Court observes the Plaintiffs purchased Defendant’s product prior to the March 5, 2024, Valisure 25 Citizen Petition on Benzene in Benzoyl Peroxide Drug Products.

26 3 See n.2.

27 4 The Court declines to adopt footnote 1 to the findings and recommendations (i.e. Doc. 38 at 4 n.1). It appears that this footnote is a “relic” from an order issued in a different case and does not apply 1 3. The motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) is DENIED. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4| Dated: December 4, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28