Valentine v. Crocs, Inc.
3:22-cv-07463
N.D. Cal.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Cornejo sued Crocs, Inc. alleging her Crocs shoes shrank after being left outside in the sun, with claims grounded in both warranties and fraud.
- Cornejo had previously experienced Crocs shrinkage and, knowing the risk, purchased a larger size and continued to buy Crocs after this incident.
- Plaintiffs alleged that Crocs’ advertisements implied suitability for outdoor use without warning of potential shrinkage in heat, while Crocs did provide heat warnings on its website and store receipts, but not necessarily at points relevant to Cornejo’s purchase.
- Only Cornejo’s claims remained after other plaintiffs were dismissed or found to lack standing; class certification was denied for lack of typicality and standing.
- Crocs moved for summary judgment on all nine claims and to strike plaintiff’s expert testimony; the court granted the summary judgment motion and denied the Daubert motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Express Warranty | Advertising and product sizing implied heat resistance and suitability for gardening use | No express or unequivocal promise made regarding shrinkage or size stability in heat | No express promise identified; summary judgment granted for Crocs |
| Breach of Implied Warranty | Advertising exception or third-party beneficiary exception to privity applies | Plaintiff lacks vertical privity; exceptions do not apply | No exceptions apply; claim dismissed |
| Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act | Stands or falls with state warranty claims | State warranty claims fail, so federal claim must also fail | Dismissed with state warranty claims |
| Fraud-based Claims (CLRA, FAL, UCL etc.) | Plaintiff relied on advertisements showing outdoor use, unaware of shrinkage defect | Plaintiff already knew about shrinkage, bought larger size, considered other factors when purchasing | No evidence of reliance; summary judgment for Crocs |
| Expert Testimony (Daubert) | Expert's polymer science opinions relevant to issue of shrinkage | Expert conducted no testing on at-issue polymer; opinions not linked to product | Moot due to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (material fact defined for summary judgment)
- Maneely v. Gen. Motors Corp., 108 F.3d 1176 (visual ads do not constitute explicit warranties)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (vertical privity for implied warranty; advertising exception for express warranty only)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (reliance and substantial factor test for fraud claims)
- Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal.2d 682 (advertising exception only applies to express warranties)