Herron v. Best Buy Co. Inc., 2:12-cv-02103

Plaintiff purchased a Toshiba Satellite L505 laptop at a Best Buy store in Folsom, CA in January 2010 and relied on a Best Buy product tag representing battery life “up to 3.32 hours.”
Plaintiff alleges Best Buy’s in-store product tags for many laptops (not just Toshiba) represent battery life based on MobileMark 2007 (MM07) testing conditions that substantially overstate consumer-expected battery life.
Plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); Best Buy moved to dismiss portions of the CLRA claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Best Buy argued the CLRA claim is time-barred based on relation-back issues for fictitiously named defendants and also argued Plaintiff failed to give adequate CLRA notice as to laptops he did not purchase.
The court previously rejected Best Buy’s statute-of-limitations/ relation-back arguments in an earlier order and adopted that reasoning here; however, the court found Plaintiff’s CLRA notice only identified the Toshiba laptop he bought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CLRA claim is barred by statute of limitations/relation-back for fictitiously named defendants	Plaintiff relies on Doe allegations and prior relation-back theory to preserve timely claims	Best Buy argues Doe allegations are inadequate so CLRA claim is time-barred	Denied: court adopts its prior order rejecting Best Buy’s statute-of-limitations argument and refuses reconsideration here
Whether Plaintiff’s CLRA damages claim can proceed for laptops he did not purchase given CLRA notice requirement	Plaintiff contends notice was sufficient and Best Buy understands the putative class scope	Best Buy contends CLRA §1782 notice only identified the Toshiba model Plaintiff purchased, so damages for other models must be dismissed	Granted in part: CLRA damages claims for laptops Plaintiff did not purchase are dismissed for failure to provide the required CLRA notice; plaintiff given 35 days to amend

Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court need not consider new arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief)
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal. App. 3d 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (CLRA notice requirement must be applied literally to give vendor sufficient notice to correct defects)