This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Breach of Warranty
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act

Rachel Lepkowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camelbak Products LLC, Camelback International LLC

Published: Apr. 3, 2020 | Result Date: Jan. 23, 2020 | Filing Date: Aug. 8, 2019 |

Case number: 3:19-cv-04598-YGR Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

L. Timothy Fisher
(Bursor & Fisher PA)

Neal J. Deckant
(Bursor & Fisher PA)

Scott A. Bursor
(Bursor & Fisher PA)


Defendant

Todd O. Maiden
(Reed Smith LLP)

Terence N. Hawley
(Reed Smith LLP)

Robert A. Roth
(Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP)


Facts

Rachel Lepkowski filed a class action lawsuit against CamelBak Productions LLC and CamelBak International LLC for allegedly manufacturing, selling, and distributing spill proof water bottles.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants intentionally issued written warranties that its eddy bottles were spill-proof when defendants knew they were not. Plaintiff further contended that the bottles' design was fundamentally defective because it allowed water to run, flow, or fall out of the bottles. Plaintiff also contended that she was injured as a direct and proximate result of defendants' breach because plaintiff would not have bought the water bottles if she knew the true facts about the design.

Plaintiff contended that she would not have paid a premium price for the water bottles if she knew the bottles were not in fact spill proof. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation and fraud.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff lacked standing because she has not alleged a concrete injury.

Result

The case was dismissed with prejudice.


#134240

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390