Casey Thornton v. Micro Star International Co. Ltd.
2:17-cv-03231
| C.D. Cal. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Thornton and Jones purchased MSI GT72/GT80 gaming laptops (2014 releases) after allegedly relying on MSI representations that the laptops were "upgradeable" to up to two later generations of NVIDIA GPUs; they paid premium prices and sought upgrades to NVIDIA's 1000-series (Pascal) when it was released in 2016.
- Plaintiffs allege MSI uniformly advertised upgradeability via website materials, packaging, reviewers’ guides, and videos, but that the laptops in fact could not be upgraded to the GTX 1000 series; MSI later stated unforeseen hardware limitations prevented providing an upgrade kit.
- Plaintiffs brought an amended class action asserting breach of contract, CLRA, UCL (unfair, unlawful, deceptive practices), FAL, express and implied warranty claims (including Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss), and common counts; MSI moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).
- MSI argued plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with particularity (who/what/when/where/how), failed to identify which specific GT72/GT80 models and which onboard GPUs plaintiffs purchased, and that many cited statements were made by third parties or only addressed limited upgrade paths.
- The court concluded the fraud-based claims (CLRA, UCL, FAL) and contract/warranty/common-count claims relied on the same defective factual showing: plaintiffs did not specify the exact laptop models or the GPUs they originally received, so the cited representations could not be shown to have applied to plaintiffs’ purchases.
- Result: the court dismissed all claims without prejudice and gave plaintiffs leave to amend by a set date to cure the pleading deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under Rule 9(b) for fraud-based claims (CLRA, UCL, FAL) | Plaintiffs relied on MSI advertising, packaging, reviewers' guides and employee statements that laptops were upgradeable to two future NVIDIA generations | MSI: plaintiffs fail to plead who said what to them, when/where they saw it, which exact laptop/embedded GPU they bought; many statements pertain only to limited models or were third-party reviews | Dismissed without prejudice — plaintiffs must identify the specific laptop models and GPUs to satisfy 9(b) and show the statements applied to their purchases |
| Breach of contract | MSI made a specific offer (packaging/advertising/warranty) that upgradeability was part of the bargain | MSI: no privity for third-party purchases and no specific offer tied to plaintiffs’ particular models | Dismissed without prejudice — lack of allegations identifying plaintiffs’ exact models/GPUs prevents showing a contractual promise formed the basis of the bargain |
| Breach of express warranty | MSI’s advertising and product materials created express warranties that Laptops with 800/900-series GPUs were upgradeable | MSI: attached limited warranty does not promise upgradeability; alleged advertising does not uniformly promise two-generation upgrades | Dismissed without prejudice — allegations fail to show an express warranty applicable to plaintiffs’ specific laptops |
| Implied warranties, Song-Beverly, Magnuson-Moss, and common counts | Laptops failed to conform to MSI’s representations and therefore breached implied warranties and support restitution/unjust enrichment | MSI: lack of vertical privity (argued previously), failure to show products not fit or devoid of value, duplicative/alternative claim issues | Dismissed without prejudice — these claims rest on the same deficient factual predicate (unspecified models/GPUs) and fail for that reason |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must raise claim above speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. U.S.A., 317 F.3d 1097 (Rule 9(b) applies where claims are grounded in fraud)
- Cafasso ex rel. United States v. General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (identify who/what/when/where/how for fraud allegations)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (plaintiff may plead himself out by including contrary details)
- Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240 (12(b)(6) tests legal sufficiency of claims)
- Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 697 F.3d 777 (product labeling/packaging can form basis of contract in some contexts)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (discusses privity issues in consumer suits)