The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rufe, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 47 Health and Welfare Funds, and Philadelphia Firefighters Union Local No. 22 Health and Welfare Fund bring this action against Defendants Ortho-McNeil-Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("OMJ"), Sandoz, Inc., and ALZA Corporation ("ALZA"), alleging violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendants OMJ and Sandoz, Inc. market and distribute the fentanyl transdermal system patch ("fentanyl patch"), which is a Schedule II narcotic, available only through a doctor's prescription, designed to deliver a steady, controlled dosage of a powerful medication that provides relief for severe and chronic pain.*fn2 ALZA, an affiliate of OMJ, contracted with OMJ and Sandoz to manufacture and supply fentanyl patches throughout the United States.*fn3 OMJ distributes the patches under the brand name Duragesic and Sandoz distributes the patches under a generic equivalent.*fn4 The fentanyl patches are available in a variety of dosage delivery rates (e.g., 12.5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 micrograms per hour ("mcg/hour")).*fn5
On February 12, 2008, OMJ announced a recall of all 25 mcg/hour Duragesic patches (and its generic equivalent) stamped with expiration dates on or before December 2009.*fn6 The official press release stated, in pertinent part, that:
[The 25mcg/hr fentanyl transdermal system patches] being recalled may have a cut along one side of the drug reservoir within the patch. The result is possible release of fentanyl gel from the gel reservoir into the pouch in which the patch is packaged, exposing patients or caregivers directly to fentanyl gel. Fentanyl patches that are cut or damaged in any way should not be used. Exposure to fentanyl gel may lead to serious adverse events, including respiratory depression and possible overdose, which may be fatal....Anyone who has 25 mcg/hr...fentanyl patches should check the box or foil pouch for the expiration date... The recalled patches all have expiration dates on or before December 2009. The cut edge in affected patches can be seen upon opening the sealed foil pouch that holds the patch. Affected patches should not be handled directly.*fn7 Plaintiffs are health and welfare trust funds that provide medical coverage, including prescription drug coverage, to their members and their members' dependents.*fn8 Plaintiffs and other similarly situated third-party payors have paid for supplies of 25 mcg/hour fentanyl patches, which were later recalled by Defendants, on behalf of their qualified members.*fn9 As a result of the recall, Plaintiffs allege that they, and similarly situated third-party payors, paid or will pay expenses related to the purchase and reimbursement of 25 mcg/hour fentanyl patches that had to be discarded.*fn10
On December 19, 2008, Plaintiffs filed the underlying class-action Complaint, alleging the following: COUNT I: Violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"); COUNT II: Breach of an Express Warranty under the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"); COUNT III: Breach of an Implied Warranty; and COUNT IV: Rescission / Unjust Enrichment. On March 25, 2009, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, asserting several grounds for dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court has carefully reviewed Defendants' Motion, Plaintiffs' Response,*fn11 Defendants' Reply,*fn12 and all accompanying materials, and this matter is now ready for disposition.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to move for dismissal of any claim wherein the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.*fn13 When considering a 12(b)(1) motion, the court "review[s] only whether the allegations on the face of the complaint, taken as true, allege sufficient facts to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court."*fn14 When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion.*fn15
In order for a plaintiff to have standing in federal court, the case or controversy presented by the plaintiff must be justiciable and establish an injury-in-fact.*fn16 To establish an injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) defendant violated a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent -- not merely an injury that is "conjectural" or "hypothetical," (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and (3) the injury is redressable by a remedy that federal courts are permitted to give.*fn17 If the complaint fails to satisfy these requirements, "a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction...[and] the claim[s] must be dismissed."*fn18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.*fn19 Under 12(b)(6), the moving party "bears the burden of showing no claim has been stated."*fn20 The court must "accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in a light most favorable to the non-moving party."*fn21 The United States Supreme Court clarified this standard in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, explaining that "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."*fn22 Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts that "raise a right to relief above the speculative level... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)."*fn23
Relying upon FRCP12(b)(1), Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs allegedly (1) failed to plead an injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy Article III standing; (2) lack standing as a "person" under the UTPCPL; and (3) do not fall within the class of buyers or end-users that may recover for a breach of warranty under the Pennsylvania UCC. The Court will address each argument separately below.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Complaint failed to allege that any of their members actually purchased defective fentanyl patches. Defendants assert that unless Plaintiffs pled that their members received patches that were actually defective, Plaintiffs' alleged injury is merely conjectural and hypothetical. Defendants further assert that "[p]ayment for a product that is recalled as a precautionary measure because it might have a defect is notthe legal equivalent of payment for a product that actually is defective."*fn24 In effect, Defendants' arguments attempt to distinguish between patches that were actually defective (e.g., patches that contained a cut on the gel reservoir) and patches that were subject to Defendants' product recall. The Court finds, however, that Defendants' recall notice made no such distinction. The recall notice warned that "[f]entanyl patches that are cut or damaged in any way should not be used," and that "[e]xposure to fentanyl gel may lead to serious adverse events, including respiratory depression and possible overdose, which may be fatal."*fn25 Plaintiffs pled that as a result of this warning and product recall, they "have paid or will pay expenses related to the purchase of and reimbursement for supplies of 25 mcg/hour fentanyl patches [previously purchased for their members, bearing the ...