801 F. Supp. 2d 1013
S.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Sony for defects in certain TV models KF-42WE610, KF-50WE610, KF60WE610, KDF-60XBR950, KDF-70XBR950, KF-42WE620, KF-50WE620, KDF-42WE655, KDF-50WE655.
- Plaintiff Marchante purchased a TV in December 2005 and later experienced discoloration; Sony offered to repair/replace under warranty, then suggested replacement after inspection.
- Plaintiffs allege a known safety defect causing overheating, melting/combustion, and occasional discoloration; Sony allegedly failed to adequately disclose the defect.
- Sony allegedly responded with an extended warranty rather than notifying consumers broadly of the defect.
- Plaintiffs assert eight claims including UCL, FAL, CLRA, strict liability, Song Beverly, Magnuson-Moss, and breach of express/implied warranties.
- Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims without prejudice, allowing amendment within 28 days if desired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCL claim survives with lack of substantial consumer injury | Marchante; alleged consumer injury from defect and concealment | Sony argues no substantial injury under Daugherty | UCL claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether CLRA claim survives under Daugherty exception for post-warranty disclosure | Plaintiffs allege safety defect obliged disclosure | No obligation to disclose absent injury or post-warranty facts | CLRA claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether FAL claim is sufficiently pleaded with specific statements | General exposure to deceptive advertising; reliance implied | No specific misstatements pleaded | FAL claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether warranty claims (express, Song Beverly, implied, MMWA) are timely and viable | Mexia tolling or exceptions | Warranties expired; latent defects not within limited warranty | All four warranty claims dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (unfairness requires substantial consumer injury; post-warranty disclosures not injury)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (advertising exposure need not specify every statement; substantial reliance context matters)
- Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939 (Cal. 2002) (false advertising liability for deceptive advertising; requires notice of misrepresentation)
- Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., 174 Cal. App. 4th 1297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (latent defect timing and implied warranty duration; applicability questioned)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (latent defects and merchantability standards; warranty duration relevance)
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 211 Cal. App. 3d 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (unconscionability assessment in contract terms; alternatives negate unconscionability)
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) (two-pronged unconscionability test; sliding scale with procedural/substantive balance)
- Moore v. Hubbard & Johnson Lumber Co., 149 Cal. App. 2d 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957) (latent defects affecting merchantability from outset)