MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association, Inc. (“The Preserve” or “plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated entities that own and/or operate sewage or wastewater treatment plants or facilities, filed this action against defendants, Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”), CVS Health Corporation (“CVS”), Kimberly-Clark Corporation (“Kimberly-Clark”), The Proctor & Gamble Company (“P & G”), Target Corporation (“Target”), Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (“Walgreens”), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) (collectively the “defendants”), alleging that defendants’ products labeled as “flushable” have caused and will continue to cause injury under strict products liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation tort theories, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied merchantability contract theories, and that the advertising of such products as “flushable” violates Sections 349 of the New York General Business Law (“NYGBL”). Presently before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as a motion in the alternative to strike plaintiff’s allegations regarding a nationwide class and stay the case. With respect to the Rule 12(b)(1) motion, defendants argue that plaintiff lacks standing because of the failure to allege any imminent injury-in-fact. For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead facts to establish the injury-in-fact requirement under Article III and, thus, dismisses the Complaint for lack of standing. As a threshold matter, the Court emphasizes that plaintiff does not seek monetary damages with respect to any past harm; rather, plaintiff only seeks prospective relief, primarily in the form of an injunction that would enjoin defendants from marketing and selling their flushable wipes as flushable, safe for sewer systems, and/or biodegradable. In an attempt to establish constitutional standing (including the “injury-in-fact” requirement), plaintiff (1) relies on the allegation that, in 2012, it incurred expenses in connection with major repairs to its sewage treatment plant due to the influx of flushable wipes (similar to numerous other municipalities), and (2) asserts, based upon that experience and the ongoing use of these wipes by consumers in Suffolk County, that the wipes “can, at any given moment, cause harm in the form of clogs.” (Pl. Br. at 19) (emphasis in original).The Court concludes that these allegations, without more, are insufficient to satisfy constitutional standing requirements for the relief sought in this case. The allegations do not establish that the threatened harm of clogging is certainly impending, or that there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur. Moreover, although it is well settled that a plaintiff can establish standing for injunctive relief based upon past harm if the plaintiff can demonstrate that it is likely to be harmed again in the future in a similar way, plaintiff’s speculative allegations in the current Complaint fail to cross that constitutional threshold. Plaintiff refers to a clog that occurred over six years ago without any concrete allegations to support the assertion that it is likely to reoccur in the future. For example, there is no allegation that plaintiff has done a single test of its sewer treatment system since 2012 to determine whether there is any level of clogging six years later, nor have they alleged that there is a single indicia of any clogging over this extended period of time. In fact, there are allegations in the Complaint that could support the inference that there are changed circumstances since the clog in 2012 that might prevent this alleged harm from recurring in the future. For example, after the clog in 2012, The Preserve installed new equipment, including pumps and a filtering system, to remedy the situation. Moreover, plaintiff issued a directive to the residents of The Preserve to refrain from flushing the flushable wipes down their toilets. The impact of this directive may be magnified by the fact that the funds required to operate the sewage treatment plant, including the repairs required due to alleged flushable wipes, are incurred by the owners of the forty units in the Preserve. Even though there are only forty units in The Preserve that utilize the sewage treatment plant at issue, plaintiff has not alleged that it has made any effort to ascertain whether the directive and cost to the residents in connection with the sewage treatment plant has persuaded some, most, or all of the residents of the forty units to cease using flushable wipes. In other words, it may very well be that the new equipment, the directive, and/or the residents’ financial incentive to avoid using any products that might clog the sewage treatment plant have in whole, or in part, alleviated any likelihood that this harm will ever recur. Thus, these variables, combined with the passage of six years since the previous clog, render plaintiff’s claim of future harm completely speculative at this point in time, absent some additional allegations to support a reasonable inference that there is a substantial risk, or any likelihood, that a clog will occur again. To hold otherwise would be to allow standing to be based on nothing more than an assertion that, because the harm happened once, there is no reason to believe it will not happen again. Under plaintiff’s logic, standing would exist even if this lawsuit were brought ten or fifteen years from now because the clog could hypothetically happen “at any given moment” because it happened once before. Such a speculative inference is woefully insufficient to satisfy the Article III standing requirement which, among other things, ensures that courts are not prematurely deciding disputes, including issuing injunctions, in situations that are unlikely to result in any future actionable harm to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. However, because plaintiff may be able to supplement the complaint with additional allegations to satisfy the standing requirement, the Court will give plaintiff an opportunity to re-plead.1I. BACKGROUNDA. The Complaint2Plaintiff asserts strict products liability, nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability claims, and violation of Section 349 of NYGBL claims against defendants for the marketing, manufacturing, distribution and/or sale of “flushable wipes.” (See generally Compl.)The Complaint defines flushable wipes as including all “moist wipe products marketed and labeled as safe to flush, safe for plumbing, safe for sewer systems and/or biodegradable.” (Id.1.) Flushable wipes are designated as “flushable” on product labeling, marketing materials, advertisements, and on sellers’ websites. (Id.3.) The Complaint asserts that flushable wipes are a “major reason wastewater systems clog” and the wipes “wreak havoc on pumps and machinery in sewage or wastewater treatment plants.” (Id.51.) According to the Complaint, clogs and other sewage system issues have been attributed to flushable wipes in major cities across the United States and Canada. (See id.
