In Re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litigation
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126077
| S.D. Cal. | 2010Background
- Putative class action alleging Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E A10/A20 TVs had latent optical-block defects after a one-year warranty.
- Plaintiffs claim Sony touted high picture quality and HDTV capability while omitting known defect.
- Express one-year warranty expired before defect manifested; replacement/repair costs around $1,500.
- Consolidated actions included additional related cases; case reassigned to Judge Gonzalez in 2010.
- FACC asserted eight claims including UCL, FAL, CLRA, other states’ consumer protection laws, Song-Beverly, MMWA, and warranty breaches.
- Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding pleading deficiencies and lack of viable basis for claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency of consumer protection claims | Plaintiffs allege deceptive marketing and concealed defect bearing on product quality. | Representations were puffery and lacked falsity; not actionable under UCL/FAL/CLRA. | Claims dismissed with prejudice |
| CLRA affidavits compliance | Affidavits were filed by named plaintiffs as required. | Only one named plaintiff filed the required affidavit. | CLRA claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Express warranty post-warranty liability | Possible Hicks exception for latent defects surviving beyond warranty. | No such exception applies to consumer electronics; warranty period governs. | Express warranty claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Implied warranty viability and privity | Song-Beverly and implied warranties could extend; plaintiffs argued unconscionability based on defect awareness. | Lack of vertical privity; duration limited to express warranty; no unconscionability shown. | Implied warranty claim dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (fraud-based UCL claims require actual reliance)
- Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. App. 4th 2006) (materiality and reliance in UCL/CLRA; express warranty context)
- Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., 89 Cal.App.4th 908 (Cal. App. 4th 2001) (exception limited to substantial latent defects in long-lived goods)
- Carlson v. General Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1989) (unconscionability and warranty duration considerations)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (express warranty limits and post-warranty liability)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (pleading fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b))