Watkins v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 574 F.Supp.3d 747

Plaintiffs sued MGA alleging the L.O.L. Surprise! 2-in-1 Glamper toy had a defective button that could trap a child’s finger; original putative class action pared down to a single plaintiff, Sensney.
Sensney did not purchase the Glamper; his mother‑in‑law bought it from an online retailer and gave it to his 7‑year‑old daughter.
The Second Amended Complaint asserted two claims: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and (2) breach of express warranty based on “Age 3+” printed on packaging/manual.
MGA moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing lack of vertical privity, inadequate pleading of unmerchantability, vagueness of the alleged express warranty term, and lack of reliance where plaintiff is not in privity.
The Court held that (a) California law requires vertical privity for section 2314 implied‑warranty claims brought against a manufacturer by an end consumer who bought from a retailer (no third‑party beneficiary exception), and (b) “Age 3+” is too vague to be a specific express warranty and Sensney failed to allege reliance required where there is no privity.
The Court dismissed both claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend, concluding amendment would be futile or untimely under Rule 16.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an end consumer who bought from a retailer can sue the manufacturer for breach of implied warranty (vertical privity requirement)	Sensney: third‑party beneficiary exception (or family exception) allows suit despite lack of vertical privity	MGA: vertical privity is required under Cal. Com. Code § 2314; no third‑party beneficiary exception in consumer context	Court: Held vertical privity required; rejected third‑party beneficiary exception for consumer warranty claims and dismissed implied‑warranty claim
Whether the phrase “Age 3+” on packaging/manual constitutes an express warranty and part of the basis of the bargain without privity	Sensney: “Age 3+” is an express warranty printed on packaging and thus part of the bargain	MGA: phrase is vague and not a specific affirmation; plaintiff not in privity and did not plead reliance	Court: Held “Age 3+” too vague to be a specific express warranty; absent privity plaintiff failed to plead required reliance; express‑warranty claim dismissed
Whether leave to amend should be granted to add a Song‑Beverly Act claim or other facts	Sensney: requests leave to amend to allege third‑party beneficiary facts or to plead Song‑Beverly claim	MGA: amendment would be untimely and futile; scheduling deadlines and lack of diligence	Court: Denied leave—amendment would be futile on privity theory and untimely under Rule 16(b)

Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejects creating new privity exceptions allowing consumers who buy from retailers to sue manufacturers on implied warranty claims)
Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal.2d 682 (Cal. 1954) (establishes privity requirement for warranty claims and recognizes reliance exception for manufacturer representations)
Hauter v. Zogarts, 14 Cal.3d 104 (Cal. 1975) (discusses UCC ‘basis of the bargain’ and recognizes family/horizontal privity principles)
Weinstat v. Dentsply Internat'l, Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1213 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (holds written affirmations can be part of the bargain where parties are in privity)
Gilbert Fin. Corp. v. Steelform Contracting Co., 82 Cal. App. 3d 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (applies third‑party beneficiary reasoning in a construction subcontract context)
In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., 233 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (district court declined third‑party beneficiary exception in consumer warranty context)
Maneely v. Gen. Motors Corp., 108 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1997) (sets out elements for express warranty under California law)