Main v. Gateway Genomics, LLC
3:15-cv-02945
| S.D. Cal. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Gateway Genomics sells an at‑home fetal gender test called SneakPeek advertised as 99% accurate as early as nine weeks; Plaintiff Jessica Azar purchased the kit in California while ~14 weeks pregnant and received a male result but delivered a female baby.
- Plaintiff alleges the test is unreliable (about coin‑flip accuracy) and cites nine online consumer complaints; she filed a putative class action asserting UCL, FAL, CLRA, fraud, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties (merchantability and fitness), and unjust enrichment.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) and to strike the class definition; the court heard the motions on the papers.
- The court denied the motion to strike the class definition as premature (class certification stage is the proper time to test ascertainability/choice‑of‑law issues).
- The court dismissed several causes of action (UCL, FAL, CLRA, fraud, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, implied warranty of fitness) for inadequate pleading—many claims failing Rule 9(b) or Rule 8 standards—and granted leave to amend except where dismissal was with prejudice for futility (implied warranty of fitness).
Issues
| Issue | Azar's Argument | Gateway's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike class definition | Strike is premature until class certification | Class definition is overbroad and should be stricken now | Denied as premature; may be revisited at certification |
| Use of California law for nationwide class (choice of law/Mazza) | Mazza inapplicable at pleading; factual record insufficient to bar nationwide claims now | Mazza requires dismissal of nationwide California‑law claims at pleading | Court may apply Mazza generally but declines to decide now; refuses to dismiss nationwide claims at pleading stage |
| UCL/FAL/CLRA and fraud (adequacy and scienter/knowledge) | Consumer complaints + allegations suffice to show Defendant knew or should have known of inaccuracy | Consumer complaints are insufficient; plaintiff must plead specifics showing knowledge | Dismissed for failure to plead with specificity and under Rule 9(b)/8; leave to amend |
| Breach of express warranty | Advertising (99% accuracy) created express warranty; refund policy allegedly available | Terms of the express warranty unclear; plaintiff did not plead notice or actual warranty terms | Dismissed for failure to plead terms/notice; leave to amend |
| Breach of implied warranty of merchantability | Manufacturer representations and labels create implied warranty exception to privity | No privity alleged; exception invoked applies to express warranty, not implied warranty | Dismissed for lack of privity; leave to amend |
| Breach of implied warranty of fitness | Test was bought for particular purpose (determine fetal sex); relied on seller's expertise | Purpose alleged is ordinary—not a special purpose—so claim fails | Dismissed with prejudice (futile to amend) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (choice‑of‑law analysis for nationwide consumer classes)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (Rule 9(b) applies to CLRA and UCL claims grounded in fraud)
- Wilson v. Hewlett‑Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (customer complaints alone do not establish manufacturer knowledge)
- Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616 (fraud pleading requires who, what, when, where, how)
- Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982 (court accepts factual allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531 (Rule 9(b) pleading standards explained)