Montich v. Miele USA, Inc.
849 F. Supp. 2d 439
D.N.J.2012Background
- Montich, a California resident, purchased a Miele front-loading washer in California in 2007 for $1,799.
- After normal use in 2008, she noticed mildew/mold odor from the machine and clothes, and Miele sent a Descaler with no lasting remedy.
- Plaintiff alleges mold/mildew design defect and asserts class actions: Class A (all who own a Miele washer) and Class B (states including CA, NJ, etc.).
- Plaintiff asserts NJCFA (Count I), California-like claims (Count II), breach of implied warranty (Count III), and unjust enrichment (Count IV).
- Defendant moves to dismiss: (a) apply CA law vs NJCFA, (b) standing/reliance under CA UCL/FAL, (c) privity under CA for implied warranty, (d) NJPLA subsumption of unjust enrichment, and (e) 9(b) heightened pleading.
- Court applies a per-action choice-of-law analysis and ultimately dismisses NJCFA claims with prejudice, dismisses CA UCL/FAL claims for lack of actual reliance, and denies in part on implied warranty and unjust enrichment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which law applies to NJCFA claims? | California law should apply; Harper supports no ripe choice-of-law. | California and New Jersey conflict; CA law should apply. | California law applies; NJCFA claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Do CA UCL/FAL claims have standing/reliance? | Plaintiff relied on Miele’s disclosures; reliance pled via omissions.</ | Plaintiff failed to plead actual reliance or the source of omissions. | CA UCL/FAL claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of actual reliance; leave to amend. |
| Is there privity for implied warranty under CA vs NJ law? | Song-Beverly Act applies; privity not required under CA law for new goods. | CA requires privity for implied warranty; NJ does not. | New Jersey law applies; privity not required for CA Song-Beverly comparison; Count III surviving. |
| Does NJPLA subsume unjust enrichment claims when CA/NJ conflict exists? | Unjust enrichment not subsumed; direct relationship alleged. | NJPLA may preclude; claims may be products-liability-based. | Count IV denied to dismiss without prejudice; parties to brief privity and §6/§221 factors if refiled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading must raise plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (Twombly plausibility standard; not all allegations are accepted)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (actual reliance required for standing under UCL/FAL)
- In re Toyota Motor Corp., 790 F.Supp.2d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (reliance on omission must be shown; materiality alone insufficient)
- Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 14 Cal.4th 39 (Cal. 1996) (unjust enrichment under California law; equitable relief principle)