503 F.Supp.3d 746
C.D. Ill.2020Background
- In Jan. 2018 Rikki Guajardo bought Skechers "Energy Lights" children’s shoes at Kohl’s; the box and labels described light features, charging, and included a CE mark but contained no safety warnings about overheating.
- Guajardo’s son experienced painful heating and a heat blister after wearing the shoes; plaintiff alleges an electrical/battery design or manufacturing defect that can cause heat, fire, or chemical burns.
- Guajardo contacted Skechers customer service and was told to return the shoes to Kohl’s; Kohl’s would not accept worn shoes.
- She filed a putative class action under CAFA asserting breach of contract, common-law warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, ICFA and UDTPA claims, and breach of express and implied warranties.
- Skechers moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court granted leave to file a reply and granted the motion: Counts I and V dismissed with prejudice; Counts II, III, IV, VI, and VII dismissed with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract & common-law warranty (Counts I & V) | Guajardo asserted contract/warranty claims based on purchase of defective shoes | Skechers: no contractual relationship with buyer (purchase from Kohl’s); arguments unopposed | Dismissed with prejudice (plaintiff abandoned these claims) |
| Implied warranty of merchantability / privity (Count VI) | Privity not required because Skechers marketed directly and product labeling created a direct relationship or plaintiff is an intended third-party beneficiary | Skechers: privity required for economic damages; plaintiff bought from Kohl’s and did not allege reliance or manufacturer knew her identity | Dismissed for lack of privity; direct-dealing exception not satisfied; claim dismissed (leave to amend denied as to substance) |
| ICFA omission/fraud (Count IV) | Skechers concealed material defect in advertising, packaging, hangtags and product | Skechers: ICFA fraud-based; must plead with particularity (Rule 9(b)); plaintiff fails to identify specific statements/omissions or knowledge | Dismissed for failure to plead a specific communication containing a material omission; court did not reach knowledge element |
| Negligence / Moorman economic-loss rule (Count III) | Plaintiff alleges son’s injury and invokes sudden/dangerous-occurrence exception to Moorman | Skechers: claim seeks economic-loss expectation damages barred by Moorman; plaintiff fails to plead knowledge of defect | Negligence claim as pleaded (economic loss) barred by Moorman; court dismissed but granted leave to amend if plaintiff pleads a cognizable personal-injury/sudden-occurrence claim |
| Unjust enrichment (Count II) | Alternative remedy if contract/warranty claims fail; Skechers unjustly retained purchase money | Skechers: claim duplicates dismissed statutory/common-law claims and rests on same allegations | Dismissed because it is duplicative and tied to other dismissed claims; no independent basis alleged |
| Class standing / scope of class | Plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of various Skechers light-up models | Skechers: named plaintiff lacks injury for non‑identical models and thus lacks class-wide standing | Court deferred standing/class-representative issues to class-certification stage; Guajardo has individual standing for her purchase |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (allegations must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 353 F.3d 516 (privity required for implied-warranty economic damages)
- Rothe v. Maloney Cadillac, Inc., 518 N.E.2d 1028 (Illinois: no buyer–seller privity against manufacturer for implied warranty absent exception)
- Szajna v. General Motors Corp., 503 N.E.2d 760 (privity not required when plaintiff alleges personal injury from product)
- Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Nat’l Tank Co., 435 N.E.2d 443 (economic-loss doctrine bars tort recovery for design/defect-related economic losses)
- De Bouse v. Bayer AG, 922 N.E.2d 309 (ICFA requires actual deception by a statement or omission; no deception absent communication)
- Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673 (class standing and Rule 23: representativeness/class certification determine whether a named plaintiff may represent others)