Papasan v. Dometic Corporation
4:16-cv-02117
N.D. Cal.Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (six named individuals) sued Dometic alleging gas-absorption RV/boat refrigerators (manufactured since ~1997) have a design defect that causes leaks and fires; several named plaintiffs suffered fires destroying RVs or refrigerators.
- Plaintiffs allege Dometic knew of the defect through internal databases, litigation, and expert reports, but concealed risks and conducted inadequate recalls/retrofits (2006, 2008) that did not fix the root cause.
- Plaintiffs assert a nationwide MMWA claim and state-law claims on behalf of California, Washington, Ohio, Texas, and Florida subclasses (consumer-protection, implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, unjust enrichment, fraud by concealment, etc.).
- Dometic moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing (Rule 12(b)(1)), lack of personal jurisdiction over some claims, statutes of limitations/repose, and for failure to state claims (Rule 12(b)(6)); plaintiffs invoked fraudulent concealment and discovery-rule tolling.
- The court dismissed the California plaintiff Papasan for lack of Article III standing (her alleged economic injury was speculative), dismissed or allowed various state claims as summarized below, and granted leave to amend most dismissed claims (except certain unjust-enrichment claims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (Papasan) | Overpaid for defective fridge; loss of bargain | Allegation is conclusory/speculative; no concrete injury | Papasan lacks standing; dismissal with leave to amend |
| Standing (other plaintiffs) | Purchasers who suffered fires or damages allege concrete injuries and traceability | Dometic challenges traceability for pre-2005 units and manufacture attribution | Other named plaintiffs have standing at this stage; factual corporate-history disputes go to merits |
| Personal jurisdiction (Vollbergs, FL) | Seek pendent jurisdiction tied to other plaintiffs' claims | Dometic: no jurisdiction over Florida claims | Because Papasan lacks standing, pendent jurisdiction fails; personal jurisdiction lacking for Vollbergs (dismissed with leave) |
| Statute of limitations / tolling (Young, Goehle, Byers, Johnston) | Fraudulent concealment and discovery rule tolled limitations; asserted particular facts of concealment | Dometic: claims time-barred; pleadings lack particularity under Rule 9(b) | Court finds fraudulent-concealment allegations sufficiently particular to permit tolling at pleading stage; claims survive in part |
| OCSPA class-notice (Young, Ohio) | Prior court decision satisfied OCSPA class-notice requirement | Dometic: cited prior decisions do not provide meaningful notice | OCSPA claim dismissed for failure to show adequate prior notice (can amend) |
| DTPA / fraud (Byers, Johnston - Texas) | DTPA and fraud by concealment based on omissions and dealer materials | Dometic: reliance on RVIA sticker is not Dometic's statement; 60-day notice defect | Affirmative misrepresentation theory relying on RVIA sticker dismissed; omission-based DTPA/fraud claims survive; DTPA 60-day notice defense waived by failure to timely abate |
| Implied warranty (Ohio, Texas) | Plaintiffs allege breach and third-party beneficiary or pre-suit notice where required | Dometic: lack of privity / no third-party beneficiary; inadequate pre-suit notice | Ohio implied-warranty claim dismissed (no privity/insufficient Bobb Forest showing); Texas implied-warranty claims survive (pre-suit notice plausibly alleged) |
| Economic-loss rule and negligence | Plaintiffs seek tort recovery for property damage and/or economic loss | Dometic: economic-loss doctrine bars negligence/strict liability recovery for integrated-product damage | Ohio: individual consumer negligence claims survive (no privity); Texas: negligence barred to extent damage limited to integrated product (refrigerator/RV) but survives for collateral property damage; Washington negligence claim dismissed as preempted by WPLA |
| Strict products liability / safer alternative | Plaintiffs point to Atwood helium-based refrigerators as feasible safer design (Atwood marketed since ~2001) | Dometic: no feasible alternative existed when older units left control; Atwood acquisition post-dates some units | Strict-liability claims survive for plaintiffs whose units postdate availability of alternative (Young, Byers, Johnston); Goehle (2000 model) strict-liability claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings and rejection of conclusory allegations)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinction between facial and factual Rule 12(b)(1) attacks and when jurisdictional facts intertwine with merits)
- Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp., 718 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) (economic injury by overpayment recognized where concrete and ascertainable)
- Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (alleged diminished market value requires something more than speculative allegations for standing)
- Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend where standing dismissal is appropriate only if amendment cannot cure)