868 F. Supp. 2d 402
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging Lasko knew of a defect in box fans and concealed it from consumers, leading to recalls in 2006 and 2011.
- Recalls covered millions of units sold between 1999–2004 (2006 recall) and 2002–2005 (2011 recall); plaintiff’s fan may be from either recall period, but she does not specify model or purchase details.
- Lasko provided a fan protection cord adapter as a remedy, which plaintiff alleges does not cure the underlying defect and can disable the fan if the fuse blows.
- Plaintiff asserts five counts: Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim, UTPCPL claim, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.
- The court granted Lasko’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing all claims without prejudice to amend within 20 days.
- Choice-of-law analysis determined Illinois law governs the CFA claim, Pennsylvania law governs warranty issues for purposes of dismissal, with depecage acknowledged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Illinois CFA claim is sufficiently pleaded with particularity and damages. | Osness contends Lasko knew of the defect and concealed it. | Lasko asserts the claim lacks Rule 9(b) specificity and actual damages. | CFA claim dismissed for lack of Rule 9(b) specificity and damages. |
| Whether Lasko's express warranty claim is viable given the two-year term and notice. | Discovery of defect post-warranty does not bar a claim; seeks unconscionability relief. | Discovery after warranty ends defeats a breach claim; the two-year term is not shown unconscionable. | Express warranty claim dismissed; discovery after warranty defeats claim; unconscionability not established. |
| Whether the two-year warranty limitation is unconscionable under Pennsylvania law. | Limitation is unconscionable because of known defect and concealment. | No sufficient facts show unconscionability. | Unconscionability claim rejected; warranty limitation upheld. |
| Whether the implied warranty of merchantability is adequately pleaded where no malfunction is alleged. | Alleges defect causes premature failure and that adapter does not cure it. | Plaintiff failed to plead that fan was not merchantable or malfunctioned. | Implied warranty claim dismissed for lack of pleaded malfunction or nonmerchantability. |
| Whether unjust enrichment is pleaded with sufficient facts and whether Illinois law recognizes independent unjust-enrichment claims. | Lasko was unjustly enriched by selling defective fans without disclosure. | Plaintiff fails to plead unjust enrichment with sufficient facts. | Unjust-enrichment claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; legal conclusions not entitled to presumption of truth)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading requires facially plausible claims)
- Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. Walgreens Co., 631 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2011) (fraud pleading standard in federal court)
- Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 675 N.E.2d 584 (Ill. 1996) (Illinois notice and actual knowledge considerations under UCC)
- Carlson v. General Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1989) (unconscionability and knowledge-of-defect considerations in warranties)
- Harris v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 183 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1999) (unconscionability standard in contract law)
- Evitts v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 834 N.E.2d 942 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (Illinois implied warranty unconscionability standards)
- Miller v. William Chevrolet/GEO, Inc., 762 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (diminution in value damages under Illinois CFA)