Herron v. Best Buy Co.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20440
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Putative consumer class action alleging CLRA, UCL. Plaintiff purchased a Toshiba Satellite L505 from Best Buy based on battery life stated as up to 3.32 hours.
- Plaintiff alleges Best Buy product tag showed battery life with no explanation of calculation or qualifiers, and did not disclose testing parameters.
- Plaintiff relied on the battery life representation and alleges actual battery life was substantially less.
- Toshiba allegedly provided MM07 testing results to retailers, with test conditions (screen at 20–30% brightness, wireless disabled, CPU at 5–7.5%), which differed from real use.
- Best Buy’s website also represents battery life with an “up to” figure and links to a pop-up disclosure about testing, but no calculation details are provided.
- Court grants partial dismissal and allows amendment of remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Toshiba’s participation and control support UCL/CLRA liability | Toshiba supplied MM07 results and influenced Best Buy’s tags. | Toshiba did not control Best Buy’s representations; no personal participation. | Toshiba's UCL/CLRA liability theories largely fail; certain claims dismissed for lack of participation. |
| Fraudulent acts under UCL/CLRA via misrepresentation | Battery life up to 3.32 hours was misleading and deceptive. | Qualifier up to 3.32 hours and testing context may defeat deception. | Plaintiff’s claims survive to some extent; up to language may be deceptive and is not per se non-misleading. |
| Fraudulent omissions under UCL/CLRA | Defendants omitted material testing details and duty to disclose. | No duty to disclose; lack of material omission and exclusive knowledge. | Materiality and some duty to disclose issues survive against certain defendants for specific theories. |
| Rule 9(b) pleading standard applicability to CLRA/UCL fraud claims | FAC satisfies 9(b) with who/what/when/where/how. | FAC lacks particularity in some respects. | Rule 9(b) pleading requirements apply; certain allegations deemed sufficiently detailed to withstand dismissal. |
| Partial representation and duty to disclose as to Best Buy | Product tag’s lack of calculation details creates partial representation and duty to disclose. | No explicit disclosure duty tied to partial representations; | Best Buy partial representation theories survive in part; Toshiba-related theories largely denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) applies to CLRA/UCL fraud claims; require particularity)
- Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. App. 4th 2003) (up to representations may be untrue or misleading)
- Emery v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 95 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (personal participation and control standard for UCL)
- Toomey, 157 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (used for personal participation/control standard)
- Collins v. eMachines, Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Judkins factors; duty to disclose under CLRA/UCL)
- Engalla v. Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 951 (Cal. 1997) (materiality standard for misrepresentations)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (materiality in misrepresentation with reasonable consumer standard)
- Silicon Image, Inc. v. Analogix Semiconductor, Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (reasonable interpretation of statements; triable issues)
- Day v. AT&T Corp., 63 Cal.App.4th 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (unfairness tethering framework development)