426 F.Supp.3d 426
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Fifteen plaintiffs from eight states filed a consolidated class action alleging Whirlpool’s "AquaLift" self‑cleaning oven technology does not perform as advertised and that Whirlpool’s marketing was misleading.
- Plaintiffs asserted a mix of claims: MMWA implied warranty, breach of contract, UCC express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and multiple state consumer‑protection claims (MI, FL, NY, CA, MO, MN, WA, GA).
- The cases were consolidated with earlier Whirlpool litigation; Whirlpool moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Key contested factual/legal issues: whether advertising created contract privity or third‑party beneficiary status; whether plaintiffs provided timely pre‑suit notice for warranty claims; and whether certain state statutory remedies or bars (e.g., class‑action bar) precluded relief.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion: dismissed all breach of contract claims with prejudice; dismissed several warranty claims for lack of notice or privity; dismissed certain state claims (MUDTPA, GUDTPA, and class claims under GFBPA) for lack of available relief or standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract / privity | Advertising and included warranty created contractual obligations or made buyers intended third‑party beneficiaries | Advertising is not an offer; plaintiffs lack privity and did not plead intent showing they were intended beneficiaries | Dismissed with prejudice — plaintiffs failed to plead privity or intended beneficiary status |
| UCC express warranty — pre‑suit notice | Plaintiffs argue notice exceptions apply for consumers | Defendant: state UCC requires timely notice to seller; plaintiffs delayed | Some express warranty claims dismissed without prejudice for unreasonable delay (e.g., Danielkiewiczs, Powers, Apgar); Leonti and Stockbridge survived notice challenge |
| UCC implied warranty — privity | Plaintiffs say implied warranties attach to buyers despite retail purchases | Defendant: implied warranty claims require privity (manufacturer vs. retailer) absent intended‑beneficiary allegations | Implied warranty claims dismissed without prejudice for several plaintiffs (Leonti, Stamates, Stockbridge) for lack of privity |
| MMWA claims | Plaintiffs invoke MMWA where state implied warranty exists | Defendant: MMWA stands or falls with underlying state UCC implied warranty | Court dismissed MMWA implied warranty claims without prejudice where corresponding state UCC claims failed |
| State consumer statutes / remedies and standing (MUDTPA, GUDTPA, GFBPA class bar) | Plaintiffs seek damages and class relief under state statutes; argue Rule 23 preempts state class‑action bar | Defendant: MUDTPA and GUDTPA provide injunctive relief only; GFBPA expressly bars representative/class actions | Court dismissed MUDTPA and GUDTPA claims for lack of permissible remedies and lack of alleged likelihood of future harm; held GFBPA class‑action bar substantive and applied it — barred class claims under GFBPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to presumption of truth in pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rule 23 vs. state law — whether federal rule yields to state substantive limitations on class actions)
- Schechner v. Whirlpool Corp., 237 F. Supp. 3d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (manufacturer–retailer privity/third‑party beneficiary analysis in Whirlpool litigation)
- Montgomery v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 822 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2016) (third‑party beneficiary / privity principles)
- Alsides v. Brown Inst., Ltd., 592 N.W.2d 468 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (MUDTPA remedy is injunctive relief only)