NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

ROBERT B. KUGLER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Louisville Ladder Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 18) Plaintiff Anthony Mosley's Complaint (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A ("Compl.")). For the reasons below, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND1

This case concerns a ladder that collapsed and caused Plaintiff to fall. (Compl. at ¶ 5.) After sustaining serious injuries, Plaintiff sued Defendant, who "marketed, designed, manufactured, sold, leased, serviced, and maintained" the ladder with a defective height adjuster pin. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff, however, does not identify or describe the ladder at issue with any specificity. He simply calls it "the subject Louisville Ladder" or the "Louisville Ladder." (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 6-9, 11, 19, 24, 31-32.)

Plaintiff initially sued in state court, alleging that adequate warnings and safety devices would have prevented his injuries. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-11.) Plaintiff asserted claims for (1) negligence, (2) strict products liability, and (3) breach of express and implied warranty. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-33.) Having removed the matter to this Court based on its diversity jurisdiction,2 Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. No. 18 ("Def.'s Br.").)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss an action for failure to state a claim if the complaint does not contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) contains a similar pleading standard, which requires that a complaint "set forth the plaintiff's claims with enough specificity as to `give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" JNL Mgmt., LLC v. Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 18-cv-5221, 2019 WL 1951123, at *3 (D.N.J. May 2, 2019) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Rule 8 requires "sufficient facts to put the proper defendants on notice so they can frame an answer" to the plaintiff's allegations. Id. (quoting Dist. Council 47, Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO by Cronin v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310, 315 (3d Cir. 1986)).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims based on the ladder's defects fail for two reasons. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's negligence, strict liability, and implied warranty claims should be dismissed because they are all subsumed by, and do not plausibly suggest a violation of, the New Jersey Products Liability Act ("PLA"). (Def.'s Br. at 8-9.) Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's express warranty claim should be dismissed because it is not plausibly alleged. (Id. at 9.)

Defendant is correct on all counts. Plaintiff's negligence, strict liability, and implied warranty claims are dismissed because they cannot be pursued as separate claims under the PLA, which provides the exclusive remedy for "any claim or action brought by a claimant for harm caused by a product, irrespective of the theory underlying the claim, except actions for harm caused by breach of an express warranty." Sich v. Pfizer Pharm., No. 17-cv-02828, 2017 WL 4407930, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2017) (dismissing strict liability, negligence, and implied warranty claims "as a matter of law" because the PLA subsumed them); see also Clements v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., Inc., 111 F.Supp.3d 586, 596-97 (D.N.J. 2015) (same). Plaintiff also fails to allege any plausible PLA claims because his allegations do not satisfy Rule 8. Plaintiff fails to allege basic facts to identify the allegedly defective ladder, including its make, model, or manufacture date. Absent any facts describing the ladder, Defendant cannot fairly be expected address Plaintiff's claims. See JNL Mgmt., LLC, 2019 WL 1951123, at *3.

Plaintiff's express warranty claim fares no better. As courts in this district have noted, express warranty claims are not plausible when, as here, the plaintiff does not allege "the specific language or source of the alleged warranty." Becker v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 14-cv-5452, 2015 WL 268857, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2015) (citing Schraeder v. Demilec (USA) LLC, No. 12cv-6074, 2013 WL 3654093, at *5 (D.N.J. July 12, 2013)); Simmons v. Stryker Corp., No. 08-cv-3451, 2008 WL 4936982, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2008). Because Plaintiff does neither, this claim also fails.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. An Order shall issue.