Anna Fischer v. COMFRT LLC
2:25-cv-01574
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Anna Fischer filed a class action against Comfrt, LLC, alleging deceptive “false reference pricing” on Comfrt’s website that misleads customers into thinking they are getting significant discounts.
- Fischer claims that purported “original” prices were rarely, if ever, actual sale prices, causing consumers to overpay.
- The First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts claims under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
- Comfrt moved to dismiss, arguing Fischers lacked standing (economic injury mooted by a refund) and failed to state a claim (no damages causation or plausible relief).
- The dispute centered around pre-suit CLRA notice, mootness due to a post-filing refund offer, injunctive relief plausibility, and the sufficiency of restitution or damages claims.
- The Court denied Comfrt’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLRA Notice Requirement | Complied by filing initial complaint for injunctive relief and then sending full notice before seeking damages; class action rules apply | Failed pre-suit notice required for damages; first notice letter deficient; refund moots claim | Plaintiff complied; §1782(a) not required for injunction; second letter timely for damages; §1782(c) (class actions) governs |
| Article III Standing and Mootness | Alleged economic loss at filing; refund not accepted does not moot, per Supreme Court precedent | Refund provided post-filing moots claim; no ongoing case or controversy | Sufficient injury at filing; refund unaccepted, so not moot; standing preserved |
| Sufficiency of Pleading (12(b)(6)) | Alleges purchase based on deception; would not have paid as much or purchased but for false pricing | No show of actual damages (worth less than paid); new disclaimer defeats injunctive claims | Causation and injury adequately pled; questions about new disclosure are factual and not dismissible at pleading stage |
| Injunctive Relief Standing | Wants to shop again but can’t trust prices; ongoing risk | Disclosures fixed; future harm speculative; no imminent threat | Allegations of desire to purchase but inability to rely on pricing sufficient for injunctive standing at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaints must allege facts above speculative level to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions require factual support to be assumed true)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing test: injury, causation, redressability)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (unaccepted settlement offer does not moot case)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct rarely moots claim)
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956 (injunctive relief plausible if consumer plausibly alleges inability to rely on future advertising)