McVicar v. Goodman Global, Inc.
2014 WL 794585
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs McVicars contracted WCS Restoration to build their California home, during which WCS installed a Goodman air conditioning unit.
- The Goodman unit failed shortly after move-in and required multiple repairs, costing approximately $1,100.
- Plaintiffs allege Goodman sold, designed, manufactured, and advertised Goodman- and Amana-brand air conditioners with warranties.
- Plaintiffs seek to represent a California class of homeowners with Goodman- or Amana-brand units installed in California.
- Defendant Goodman moves to dismiss the complaint; plaintiffs oppose, and the court partially grants and partially denies the motion.
- Procedural posture: case commenced August 12, 2013; stay granted in 2013 pending JPML consideration; stay lifted January 2014; motion to dismiss at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UCL standing and causation | McVicars suffered economic injury; WCS acted as their agent, causing injury. | Plaintiffs lack standing because they did not purchase the product themselves and misattributions of reliance fail. | McVicars have standing for economic injury; standing requires actual causation, which the court found lacking for the fraud theories but sustained for standing under some theories. |
| Unlawful prong of UCL | Defendant's violations of warranty and other laws support unlawful prong. | No explicit underpinning law identified in count for unlawful prong. | Court denies dismissal of unlawful prong claim. |
| Unfair prong of UCL | Warranties and selling defective units show unfair conduct that harms consumers. | Defendant disputes the balancing/public policy basis for unfair prong. | Court denies dismissal; finds allegations sufficient to plead unfair prong. |
| False Advertising Law standing | Tobacco II standing extends to FAL claims; advertising was made to consumers. | No reliance on广告 or ads shown by plaintiffs; no standing. | FAL claim dismissed for lack of standing without prejudice. |
| CLRA affidavit requirement | Affidavit requirement should not apply in federal court. | Affidavit requirement applies and was not satisfied. | CLRA claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to file required affidavit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (injury-in-fact requires economic injury and causation under UCL)
- Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (unlawful prong borrows other laws to define unfair acts)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (actual reliance required for standing, but not individualized reliance for fraud)
- Weinstat v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (express warranty elements governed by UCC; reliance not always required)
- Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 1297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (latent defects and implied warr. discussions; limitations on discovery of defects)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (recognizes contract and warranty interpretations in California standing and damages)