In re Fluidmaster, Inc.
149 F. Supp. 3d 940
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- MDL consolidating multiple consumer suits against Fluidmaster over allegedly defective "NO-BURST" water supply lines and a plastic toilet coupling nut that allegedly fractures and causes flooding.
- Plaintiffs include named individuals (13 initially, later issues with adding a 14th, Kevin Smith) and putative state subclasses (including a California subclass); consolidated complaint treated as a superseding operative pleading in the MDL.
- Claims include CLRA and UCL (California), various state UDTP statutes (Arizona, Illinois, Georgia), unjust enrichment (California), and others; some plaintiffs already replaced the allegedly defective lines.
- Fluidmaster moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and to strike under Rule 12(f), challenging subject-matter/Article III standing for injunctive relief, statutory standing under CLRA, sufficiency of certain state-law claims, and procedural defects in adding parties/subclasses.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part: it denied striking the California subclass, dismissed the CLRA claim for the California subclass without prejudice for failure of CLRA pre-suit notice (as to that putative subclass), denied dismissal of the CLRA and many statutory claims on the merits at pleading stage, but dismissed all asserted injunctive-relief claims for lack of Article III standing (without prejudice) where plaintiffs lacked a credible threatened future injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the California subclass (and named Kevin Smith) may remain in consolidated complaint | Plaintiffs included a California subclass in the superseding consolidated complaint; addition is a minor evolution in MDL | Fluidmaster: Plaintiffs failed procedural steps to add Smith and have no California representative so subclass is improper | Court: Struck Smith without prejudice for procedural noncompliance but denied motion to strike California subclass; consolidated complaint is operative and inclusion of subclass permitted for now |
| CLRA pre-suit notice for California subclass | Smith later served CLRA notice; claim should be allowed if notice cured | Fluidmaster: Smith failed to give required 30-day certified notice before seeking damages; dismissal with prejudice required | Court: Dismissed CLRA claim for California subclass without prejudice; cited Morgan (Cal. Ct. App.) — failure to give notice is curable and dismissal without prejudice appropriate |
| Statutory standing under CLRA (consumer/transaction requirements) | Plaintiffs: CLRA should be liberally construed; plaintiffs who acquired lines via home purchase, retailers, plumbers nonetheless qualify; manufacturers liable where intended to put goods into stream of commerce or had exclusive knowledge | Fluidmaster: Plaintiffs did not transact with Fluidmaster and many did not personally purchase the product, so they are not "consumers" or lack the requisite transaction | Court: At pleading stage, plaintiffs adequately alleged they "acquired" products and alleged transactions with a "person"; rejected a bright-line direct-transaction rule and denied dismissal of CLRA claims on this basis (but dismissed Hungerman and Sanborn's CLRA claims voluntarily) |
| Inclusion of CLRA/UCL counts by named plaintiffs who did not plead them pre-MDL | Plaintiffs: Superseding consolidated complaint can minorly rework claims; efficiency justifies inclusion without formal amendment | Fluidmaster: Claims were not in underlying complaints for most named plaintiffs; should be struck | Court: Denied motion to strike; superseding consolidated complaint supersedes underlying complaints in this MDL and minor adjustments permitted |
| Article III standing for injunctive relief (various statutes) | Plaintiffs: Classwide injunctive relief justified; some named plaintiffs (e.g., Larson) still have lines in place so threat exists; unnamed class members may face future harm | Fluidmaster: Most named plaintiffs already replaced lines; no credible imminent injury; injunctive relief claims thus lack Article III standing | Court: Plaintiffs failed to allege a redressable, imminent threat for injunctive relief; injunctive claims dismissed without prejudice under Article III across CLRA, UCL, IUDTPA, GUDTPA, AEMLD, etc. (Larson’s alleged risk insufficiently connected to requested relief) |
| State statutory consumer claims (Arizona ACFA, Illinois IUDTPA, Georgia GUDTPA) | Plaintiffs: Manufacturers can be sued by downstream consumers; intermediaries are part of the chain to consumers; statutes protect purchasers harmed by deceptive practices | Fluidmaster: No direct sale/transaction with manufacturer; plaintiffs lack standing/likelihood of future harm required by some statutes | Court: Denied dismissal of Arizona ACFA claim at pleading stage; dismissed Illinois and Georgia injunctive-only claims for lack of alleged likelihood of future harm (without prejudice) |
| Unjust enrichment under California law | Plaintiffs plead quasi-contract/restitution alternatively | Fluidmaster: California does not recognize a standalone unjust enrichment claim | Court: Denied dismissal; treated unjust enrichment as restitution/quasi-contract and permitted alternative pleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts accept well-pled facts but not legal conclusions)
- In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., 731 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing master/administrative consolidated complaints and operative effect)
- Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 177 Cal. App. 4th 1235 (2009) (CLRA notice defect curable; dismissal without prejudice until 30 days after notice)
- Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2005) (recipient of a gifted item was not a CLRA "consumer" absent purchase)
- Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (manufacturer can be liable under CLRA for products sold to consumers through intermediaries when products intended for consumer sale)
- Tietsworth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 720 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (manufacturer liability under CLRA/UCL where manufacturer had exclusive knowledge of defect)