550 F.Supp.3d 815
N.D. Cal.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Robin Watkins and Adam Sensney sued MGA alleging the L.O.L. Surprise! 2‑in‑1 Glamper has a design defect: its release button can trap a child’s finger. Watkins’ daughter allegedly suffered finger entrapment requiring firefighters to cut the toy off.
- The Glamper was marketed for children “Ages 3+”; plaintiffs allege MGA knew of other similar injuries and later modified the design (added a rubber gasket) but did not adequately warn or recall the original units.
- Neither named plaintiff bought the Glamper: Watkins’ mother bought one for her child; Sensney’s mother‑in‑law bought one for his daughter. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of owners of the original Glamper model but exclude personal‑injury damages for class members.
- Causes of action: negligence (stipulated dismissed), breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty (fitness for a particular purpose), CLRA and UCL claims; MGA moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims.
- Court granted MGA’s motion: dismissed all claims for inadequate pleading; granted leave to amend for all claims except the CLRA claim (CLRA dismissed with prejudice). Key defects: failure to plead exact express‑warranty terms and reliance for fraud‑based statutory claims; CLRA standing lacking because plaintiffs did not purchase the product; implied‑warranty claim mischaracterized and insufficiently pled; equitable relief barred without showing inadequate legal remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty — terms and reliance | Express warranty based on “Appropriate for ages 3+” and product depictions; reliance not required for express warranty | Plaintiffs failed to plead the exact warranty wording or where it appeared; Sensney never saw/relied on it | Dismissed for failure to plead exact terms; leave to amend granted |
| Breach of implied warranty — privity / theory | Privity not required (Song‑Beverly or family exception/third‑party beneficiary); product unfit for ordinary use | No privity with manufacturer; only implied warranty pled (fitness for particular purpose) and plaintiffs allege ordinary use as a toy | Family privity exception applied, but claim for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose fails (ordinary use alleged); leave to amend to plead merchantability permitted |
| CLRA standing | CLRA should be read broadly to cover injured non‑purchasers who relied on omissions; Chamberlan supports manufacturer liability | CLRA requires the plaintiff be a “consumer” (purchaser/lessee); plaintiffs never bought the Glamper | CLRA claim dismissed with prejudice for lack of CLRA standing (plaintiffs not consumers) |
| UCL/CLRA (fraud allegations, Rule 9(b), reliance, equitable relief) | Omissions are pleaded; plaintiffs need only a relaxed particularity standard for omissions; equitable relief premature to test now | Claims sound in fraud and must meet Rule 9(b); plaintiffs failed to plead particular misrepresentations/omissions or their own reliance; Sonner requires pleading inadequacy of legal remedies and risk of future harm for injunctive relief | UCL/CLRA dismissed: fraud‑based claims fail for lack of particularity and reliance; equitable restitution/injunctive relief barred absent allegations that legal remedies are inadequate or likelihood of future harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as factual allegations)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (UCL/CLRA claims grounded in fraud require Rule 9(b) particularity)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) (actual reliance required for UCL misrepresentation‑based standing)
- Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2005) (CLRA standing limited to the actual purchaser/consumer)
- Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) (equitable restitution under UCL/CLRA requires showing inadequate legal remedies)
- Hauter v. Zogarts, 14 Cal. 3d 104 (1975) (family member exception to privity for warranty claims)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (limits on extending privity via third‑party beneficiary theories)