Statler v. Dell, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36511
| E.D.N.Y | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Statler purchased five Dell Optiplex computers in 2003 for his chiropractic business, with a five-year warranty covering defects in materials and workmanship and a non-extended warranty period even if repaired.
- Plaintiff alleges defects were caused by faulty external capacitors, present at manufacture, leading to persistent operational failures despite Dell repairs.
- Dell allegedly knew of capacitor-related failures before 2005 and concealed them, with warranties and repairs not curing the defects.
- A 2007 North Carolina lawsuit and a June 2010 New York Times article are cited as sources supporting the existence and timing of the alleged defects and Dell's knowledge.
- Dell submitted supportive materials including its 2005 Form 10-Q noting a $307 million warranty charge for Optiplex systems with vendor-part failures.
- Plaintiff filed suit in 2010 asserting four claims: MMWA violation, NYUCC § 2-314, NY GBL § 349, and unjust enrichment; defendant moved to dismiss on several grounds including statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warranty claims are timely | Statler contends tolling or discovery rules extend accrual. | Accrual occurred at delivery, regardless of discovery. | Warranty claims accrued at delivery and are untimely absent tolling; equitable tolling discussion reserved. |
| Whether NYUCC § 2-725 accrual controls timing | Discovery and repair attempts toll accrual. | Accrual occurs on tender of delivery; discovery does not toll. | Accrual at delivery; plaintiff's claims untimely unless tolling applies. |
| Whether Section 349 claim is time-barred or inapplicable to business-use purchases | Section 349 applies to consumer-oriented deception; not limited to consumers. | Business-use purchasers are not protected; timeliness bars claim. | Section 349 survives as to consumer-oriented deception; some aspects may be time-barred, but not dispositive on the entire claim. |
| Whether safety-hazard claims are plausible | Defective capacitors could leak and cause injury; safety claims should proceed. | No actual injury or manifestation; claims fail as implausible. | Safety-hazard claims dismissed for lack of damages or injury. |
| Whether unjust enrichment can survive given contract warranty | Unjust enrichment independent of contract for safety or concealment. | Uniform contract governs; no quasi-contract theory allowed. | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed as arising from a sale governed by contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (facial plausibility required)
- Long Island Lighting Co. v. Imo Industries, Inc., 6 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 1993) (contractual repair obligations do not toll four-year warranty period)
- Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 604 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1979) (no tolling of U.C.C. four-year limitations for repair attempts)
- Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 96 N.Y.2d 201 (New York 2001) (accrual of § 349 claim and injury-based accrual principles)