8 F. Supp. 3d 1074
E.D. Ark.2013Background
- Plaintiff Denise Jarrett sues Sanyo Manufacturing Corp., Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal‑Mart Stores Arkansas, L.L.C. in Arkansas federal court following CAFA removal of a state action.
- Plaintiff alleges design defect in 42" and 46" Sanyo plasma TVs causing flicker, intermittent loss of picture, and other defects nationwide; Arkansas subclass also sought.
- Plaintiff asserts three claims: breach of implied warranty of merchantability, ADTPA violation, and unjust enrichment; she seeks class certification for nationwide and Arkansas subclass.
- Sanyo’s Owner’s Manuals disclaimer excluded implied warranties, including merchantability, but Wal‑Mart’s disclaimer invocation is contested; Sanyo’s disclaimer is deemed conspicuous and effective against the warranty claim, whereas Wal‑Mart’s disclaimer is not.
- Court discusses pre‑suit notice under Ark. UCC 4‑2‑607(3)(a); Court finds a fact issue as to adequacy of notice, not dispositive on the claim.
- Court grants judgment on the pleadings in part (Sanyo warranty claim) and in part (ADTPA and unjust enrichment as to Sanyo), dismisses class allegations, and allows unjust enrichment claim to proceed against Wal‑Mart at this stage. Court denies discovery on class allegations and limits amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty disclaimer validity | Wal‑Mart may not avoid implied warranties via manufacturer disclaimer. | Sanyo’s conspicuous merchantability disclaimer disclaims implied warranties; Wal‑Mart relies on the manufacturer disclaimer. | Sanyo disclaimer valid; Wal‑Mart disclaimer not established. |
| ADTPA pleading and reliance | ADTPA claim rests on concealment/omission of material facts and reliance suffices. | Plaintiff fails to plead reasonable reliance and injury with particularity (9(b)). | ADTPA claim dismissed for lack of pleaded reliance, injury, and particularity. |
| Unjust enrichment against Sanyo | Unjust enrichment applies where no express contract covers the claim. | Existence of express one‑year written warranty defeats unjust enrichment against Sanyo. | Unjust enrichment dismissed as to Sanyo; allowed against Wal‑Mart at this stage. |
| Class certification across multiple states | Nationwide class and Arkansas subclass are appropriate; common issues predominate. | Choice of law and state differences preclude nationwide class; differences defeat predominance and commonality. | Class allegations dismissed; nationwide and Arkansas subclass fail under Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(a). |
| Pre‑suit notice sufficiency | Pre‑suit notice alleged through calls/attempts to return/repair suffices under Ark. UCC 4‑2‑607(3)(a). | Adequacy of notice is factual and uncertain. | Notice adequacy is a fact issue; denial of dispositive relief on that point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards require plausible claims, not bare conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (facial plausibility required for claims to survive dismissal)
- Williams v. Mozark Fire Extinguisher Co., 318 Ark. 792, 888 S.W.2d 303 (Ark. 1994) (notice requirements liberalized; reasonable notice suffices under UCC)
- In re Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Dillaha, 280 Ark. 477, 659 S.W.2d 756 (Ark. 1983) (Arkansas law on causation and tort principles relevant to product claims)
- United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, 355 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2004) (omissions pleading requirements; time/place/circumstances of omissions must be pled)