Hill v. Hoover Co.
899 F. Supp. 2d 1259
N.D. Fla.2012Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Hill purchased a Hoover Steam Vac from Walmart in Gainesville, Florida, around December 21, 2003, priced over $200.
- Plaintiff alleges design, manufacture, and workmanship defects that caused leakage, broken tank handle, and broken cord hook, prompting warranty repairs.
- The Steam Vac allegedly had a one-year warranty and Plaintiff followed its terms by delivering the unit for repair within the warranty period.
- Authorized Appliance, the service center, reported several similar back-ordered defective Steam Vacs while Defendants redesigned the tank, delaying repair for about nine-and-a-half weeks.
- Plaintiff asserts additional express and implied representations about reliability, ordinary-use suitability, workmanship, and timely repair, which allegedly were not satisfied.
- Plaintiff filed a ten-count complaint asserting FDUTPA, MMWA, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDUTPA pleading standard applicability | FDUTPA claims do not require Rule 9(b) specificity. | FDUTPA claims must meet Rule 9(b) specificity. | Rule 8(a) governs FDUTPA; 9(b) not required for unfair/deceptive claims. |
| FDUTPA sufficiency | Plaintiff pleads deceptive/unfair acts, causation, and damages. | Plaintiff fails to plead a deceptive act with particularity. | Plaintiff adequately pleaded FDUTPA elements; claim survives 12(b)(6). |
| MMWA privity requirement | MMWA allows state-law warranty claims to support an action even without privity. | Privity required; no direct purchase from Defendants defeats MMWA claim. | Plaintiff lacks privity; Counts III-IV dismissed. |
| Privity for Florida express/implied warranties | Statutory privity not required for breach of express/implied warranties under Florida law. | Privity is required; Plaintiff purchased from a retailer, not directly from Defendants. | Privity required; Counts V-VI and VII-VIII dismissed. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Plaintiff pleads unjust enrichment in the alternative; adequate legal remedy does not bar it. | Unjust enrichment barred where adequate legal remedy exists; must plead lack of adequate remedy. | Unjust enrichment pleaded in the alternative; Counts IX-X survive 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Jovine v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 795 F.Supp.2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (distinguishes Rule 9(b) application to FDUTPA claims based on fraud vs. unfair conduct)
- Rentas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 936 So.2d 747 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (MMWA privity-based discussions; absence of privity in some contexts)
- Mesa v. BMW of N. Am., 865 F.Supp.818 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (privity discussion under state warranty law)
- Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 663 F.Supp.2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (some reliance on independent MMWA analysis; not persuasive here)
- Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (MMWA borrowing state-law implied warranties; written warranties under MMWA debate)
- T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F.Supp.842 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (Florida privity requirement for breach of express/implied warranty)
- Gary v. D. Agustini & Asociados, S.A., 865 F.Supp.818 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (unjust enrichment discussion in context of available remedies)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Physicians Injury Care Center, Inc., 427 Fed.Appx. 714 (11th Cir. 2011) (unjust enrichment exception to adequacy of legal remedies; contract existence affects claim)
- ThunderWave, Inc. v. Carnival Corp., 954 F.Supp. 1562 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (alternative pleading theory allowed under Rule 8(a))