219 F. Supp. 3d 962
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Crystal Springs Uplands School (Plaintiff) purchased and installed a FieldTurf Duraspine artificial turf field from FieldTurf entities (Defendants) in 2009, paying roughly $293,760, with an eight-year manufacturer’s warranty.
- Defendants’ marketing materials represented Duraspine as proprietary, highly durable, and long-lived (8–10 years), and promoted long-term cost savings.
- Defendants had received complaints and internally investigated fiber degradation before or during 2009; Defendants later sued their supplier alleging TenCate changed fiber formulation causing premature degradation.
- Plaintiff’s field began failing by 2015; Defendants performed maintenance but refused replacement under warranty. Plaintiff sued for breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair competition.
- Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty claims. The Court considered whether the economic loss rule bars negligent misrepresentation and whether pleading a written warranty is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty — pleading requirement | Complaint sufficiently alleges express warranty and reliance on marketing and warranty. | Warranty claim fails because plaintiff did not allege the warranty was in writing (Statute of Frauds). | Denied dismissal. Plaintiff need not plead away the statute of frauds; statute is an affirmative defense for defendant to raise. |
| Whether Plaintiff is a "merchant" such that tort remedies are barred | Plaintiff (a private school) is not a merchant — relied on product representations in purchasing one field. | Parties are merchants; tort recovery inappropriate between merchants. | Denied dismissal: Plaintiffs facts do not plausibly make it a "merchant" under Cal. Comm. Code §2104. |
| Negligent misrepresentation — economic loss rule | Plaintiff alleges affirmative misrepresentations in marketing and warranty and reliance; seeks tort relief. | Economic loss rule bars tort claims seeking only economic loss to the product; negligent misrepresentation parallels contract and must be dismissed. | Granted dismissal without prejudice: as pled claim is barred because plaintiff did not allege exposure to independent personal liability beyond economic loss. Leave to amend granted. |
| Leave to amend and scheduling | N/A | N/A | Negligent misrepresentation dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff may amend within 30 days. Case management conference set. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies plausibility and limits conclusory allegations)
- Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard discussion)
- Jimenez v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 473 (Cal. 2002) (economic loss rule: tort recovery limited where only product damage alleged)
- Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004) (economic loss rule exception for affirmative misrepresentations that expose plaintiff to independent personal liability)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend generally required on dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))