Graveline v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.
871 F. Supp. 2d 1033
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Defendant Select Comfort moves under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Graveline negligence and strict products liability claims and Graveline loss of consortium claim.
- Gravelines allege mold growth in the Sleep Number bed caused Sandra Graveline’s pulmonary and other health problems beginning in 2007.
- Mold was found under the foam pad of the Gravelines’ bed in 2010; subsequent tests confirmed high concentrations of Aureobasidium.
- After removing the moldy bed and installing a HEPA filter in 2010, Graveline’s breathing problems improved.
- Gravelines assert design defects and knowledge by Select Comfort about mold risk, with duties to warn or recall.
- The court applies the plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) and addresses causation, statute of limitations, design defect/warning theories, and loss of consortium.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation sufficiency | Graveline injury plausibly linked to bed mold | No adequate causation pleadings; long gap weakens inference | Causation plausibly alleged; not dismissed |
| Statute of limitations / discovery rule | Discovery rule tolled accrual; discovery in 2010 | No timely pleading under California 2-year limit and discovery rule | Not time-barred at pleading stage; discovery rule applied |
| Unreasonably dangerous product / design defect | Alleged inherent mold-promoting design defect and knowledge | No factual basis for design defect or notices to warn | Sufficient facts to support design-defect / failure-to-warn theory |
| Loss of consortium causation | Caregiver impact and deprivation of support due to spouse’s injury | Causation required and not adequately pleaded | Not time-barred; causation adequately alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.2011) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (claims must be plausible; bare conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (pleading requires more than mere labels or conclusory statements)
- Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir.2011) (limits on conclusory factual allegations)
- Maneely v. Gen. Motors Corp., 108 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir.1997) (design defect / failure-to-warn standard for products)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (discovery rule for accrual of medical injury claims)