Clara Druzgalski v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Druzgalski alleges that on October 14, 2023, while she was pregnant, CVS erroneously administered her the Arexvy vaccine, a brand of respiratory syncytial virus (“RSV”) vaccine that is not tested or approved for use on pregnant individuals. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14 [Doc. # 1-3]. Instead of using the Abrysvo vaccine, which is approved for use on pregnant women, CVS gave her and putative Class Members the Arexvy vaccine. Id. ¶ 1. She also alleges that CVS advertised on its website that people can receive the RSV vaccine at its pharmacies, and directed its advertising towards pregnant individuals. Id. ¶¶ 9–10.
On February 16, 2024, Druzgalski filed a Class Action Complaint against CVS in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), (2) negligence, and (3) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Act (“UCL”). Id. ¶ 1. Druzgalski seeks to represent two proposed classes: (1) “[a]ll California residents who were incorrectly administered the Arexvy vaccine by