Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83148
D.N.J.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are eight purchasers of Maytag Centennial washing machines alleging mislabeling as Energy Star compliant.
- Manufactuer Whirlpool and retailers Lowe’s, Sears, Home Depot, Fry’s, and ARCA are named defendants; class structure spans eight states.
- DOE/EPA Energy Star program labels were affixed to the washers; later DOE testing found certain models noncompliant, leading to EPA/DOE actions.
- FAC claims price premiums and higher operating costs due to mislabeling; asserted causes include breach of express/implied warranties, unjust enrichment, MMWA, and various state consumer protection statutes.
- Motions to dismiss filed; court grants in part and denies in part, with leave to amend the FAC.
- Key procedural note: court analyzes choice-of-law/privity questions, leaves open the form of eligibility for amendment; dismissals are without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy Star logo as express warranty; governing law/privity | Logo constitutes express warranty; NJ law governs; privity with manufacturers not required in several states. | No substantive warranty from logo; privity issues and multi-state conflicts; Michigan privity rules differ. | Energy Star logo can constitute express warranty; New Jersey law governs express warranty claims (Michigan privity limited to Whirlpool). |
| Implied warranty of merchantability against Whirlpool | Washing machine failures to meet Energy Star standards render them unfit for ordinary purpose; privity not always required. | Privity required under Ohio/California/Florida law; no direct privity with Whirlpool -> claims fail against Whirlpool. | Privity defeated for Maxwell, Baker, Parsons, Reid against Whirlpool; remaining implied-warranty claims proceed against retailers and some against Whirlpool to the extent privity allows. |
| Unjust enrichment against Whirlpool | Plaintiffs conferred a price premium; Whirlpool unjustly enriched; relief sought as alternative to warranty claims. | No direct benefit to Whirlpool; only retailers received payment. | Unjust enrichment dismissed against Whirlpool; maintained against other retailers. |
| Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act viability | MMWA claims rest on state-law warranty claims; Energy Star logo constitutes a written warranty. | MMWA claims depend on the underlying state-law claims; some claims may be invalid. | MMWA claims survive consistent with the viable state-law warranty claims; motions to dismiss denied on this ground. |
| State consumer protection claims (NJCFA, CLRA/UCL/FAL, others, OCSPA, IDCSA, TDTPA) viability | Plaintiffs allege unlawful acts, reliance on Energy Star representations, and ascertainable losses across states. | Pleading standards and inter-state pleading issues, notice and causation defects; some claims lack specificity or timeliness. | NJCFA claims sustained for NJ plaintiffs; CA CLRA claim for Baker dismissed, CLRA claim for Maxwell survives; UCL and FAL claims denied for dismissal; MPCA claim dismissed; FDUTPA claim survives for Reid; OCSPA claim survives for Parsons; IDCSA claim dismissed; TDTPA claim survives with discovery-rule applicability and pre-suit notice considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plaintiff must plead plausible grounds for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; separation of conclusory allegations from factual content)
- Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 155 F.3d 644 (3d Cir.1998) (Rule 9(b) particulars for fraud allegations)
- Snyder v. Famam Companies, Inc., 792 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D.N.J.2011) (standing and pleading standards in consumer claims)
- Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp., 169 Cal.App.4th 5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (privity and express warranty analyses in California)
- Viking Yacht Co. v. Composite One LLC, 496 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D.N.J.2007) (implied warranty/privity considerations under New Jersey law)
- Argueta v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60 (3d Cir.2011) (three-step pleading framework for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Taylor v. JVC Amer. Corp., 2008 WL 2242451 (D.N.J. 2008) (express warranty pleading examples (on point cited by court))