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
False Advertising
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Laury Smith v. LG Electronics USA Inc., Sears Holdings Corp.

Published: Apr. 5, 2014 | Result Date: Mar. 11, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:13-cv-04361-PJH Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Lawrence T. Fisher


Defendant

Emily V. Griffen

James Donato
(Northern District of California)


Facts

Laury Smith filed a purported class action against LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. and Sears Holding Corp. in connection with six models of top-loading LG brand and Kenmore brand automatic clothes-washing machines.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Smith contended that the subject washing machines, which were advertised as "High Efficiency machines" that features "extra high" speeds that prevented or minimized vibrations and provided smooth, quiet operations during use, was defective. Smith contended that the machines' defects caused them to shake and vibrate vigorously due to unbalanced loads. The shaking and vibration, in turn, caused internal parts to become loose.

Smith asserted causes of action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; unjust enrichment; violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; false advertising, in violation of the False Advertising Law; and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Smith's complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

Result

U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted defendants' motion to dismiss. In addition, the court found that any attempt to amend the breach of warranty claims would be futile. As such, the judge dismissed Smiths' first through fifth causes of action, and the ninth cause of action with prejudice. However, the court granted Smith leave to amend her other claims.


#84767

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

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