Chung v. Igloo Prods. Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-4926 (MKB) |
| Parties | DAVID CHUNG and STEVEN HARGROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiffs David Chung and Steven Hargrove commenced the above-captioned putative class action on October 13, 2020, against Defendant Igloo Products Corp. (“Igloo”), alleging that the portable ice coolers manufactured by Defendant do not retain ice as marketed, advertised, and promoted. (Compl. ¶ 1 Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the New York General Business Law (the “GBL”), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350; the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 et seq.; and assert claims for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment under common law. (Id. ¶¶ 69-115.) Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. at 20-21.)
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for lack standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Plaintiffs oppose the motion.[1] For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant's motion and dismisses Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.
The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Complaint for the purposes of this Memorandum and Order.
Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells portable ice coolers throughout the United States with various “ice retention” claims. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 25-27.) It defines ice retention as “the amount of time that it takes ice to reach 39 degrees and begin to melt.” (Id. ¶ 30.) Defendant sells a line of coolers that claim, “3 Day,” “5 Day,” “7 Day,” or “120 Hour” ice retention and include clarifying language that states the coolers retain ice “Under Controlled Conditions in 90 degrees constant.” (Id. ¶ 27.) The prices of the ice coolers range from $20.00 to $250.00. (Id. ¶ 26.)
Plaintiffs focus on Defendant's manufacture of an Igloo Latitude 90-quart cooler (the “Product”) that Defendant claims retains ice for 120 hours. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12, 15.) The Product's label specifies that it retains ice in: [2] (See id. ¶ 27.)
(Image Omitted) (See id.) The Product also carries an express Limited Warranty guaranteeing that it will “be free from defects in material or workmanship.”[3] (Id. ¶¶ 85-86.) The Limited Warranty claims to be the “exclusive warranty” offer to “repair the product free of charge or provide [the consumer] with a replacement product if the product proves defective.” (Id. ¶ 85.)
Chung, a citizen of the State of New York, purchased the Product for personal use after seeing its 120-hour ice retention claim. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.) Chung paid forty-nine dollars for the Product and used it for fishing, travel, and picnics mostly in temperatures ranging between seventy to ninety degrees Fahrenheit. (Id. ¶ 12.) He initially placed thirty to forty pounds of ice in the cooler and claims that the ice was retained for a maximum of two days while draining the water every few hours. (Id.) Chung had to replenish the ice in order to keep fresh food from spoiling on fishing trips or during long-term travel. (Id. ¶ 13.)
Hargrove, a citizen of New Jersey, purchased the Product for personal use after seeing its 120-hour ice retention claim. (Id. ¶ 14.) Hargrove paid sixty dollars for the Product and used it for fishing, picnics, and barbeques mostly in temperatures ranging between eighty to ninety degrees Fahrenheit. (Id. ¶ 15.) On long fishing trips, he packs three to four bags of ice in the cooler and on the way home adds another two to three bags of ice in the cooler. (Id. ¶ 16.) However, the cooler is mostly water with some pieces of ice floating in it by the time he returns home. (Id.) When he uses the cooler for a barbeque or picnic, he notices that most of the ice melts into water by late afternoon. (Id. ¶ 17.)
Plaintiffs expected the Product to last for 120 hours based on the representations made by Defendant but claim that the Product does not retain ice for the amount of time advertised. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 37.) They assert that Defendant, despite knowing that their ice coolers did not retain ice for the specified period, continued to represent the Product's quality and fitness and continued to warrant that the units were “free from defects in materials and workmanship.” (Id. ¶ 85.) Plaintiffs contend that other customers have complained to Defendant that the coolers do not perform as promised. (Id. ¶ 38.) For example, on October 30, 2019, an internet reviewer claimed that they “[p]ut [sixty]lb[s] of ice in [one of Defendant's coolers] on a[n] [eighty-five degree] day and drove [eighty] miles and half [of] the ice was melted, the cooler had condensation on the outside of it and the remaining ice lasted a day or so.” (Id.) Other reviewers claimed that the cooler “was advertised as being able to keep ice for [five] days . . . [but the consumer] didn't even get [two] days” and that they “bought the cooler because it said it would keep ice for [five] days . . . [but the ice only lasted] [one] day[,] [one and a half] max.” (Id.) Several reviews stated that Defendant's ice coolers failed to function as advertised. (Id.) Plaintiffs also refer to several “experiments” conducted by consumers who purchased the Product, in which the Product failed to retain ice for the promised period. (Id. ¶¶ 41-47.)
On October 13, 2020, Plaintiffs commenced this class action alleging deceptive and unfair business practices in violation of several consumer protection laws, including the New York GBL and the New Jersey CFA, and also asserting claims for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment under common law. (Id. ¶¶ 69-115.) Plaintiffs seek to bring this suit on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased one or more of Defendant's ice coolers that claimed “3 Day, 5 Day, 7 Day, or 120 Hour” ice retention. (Id. ¶ 57.) In addition to damages, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.)
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
i. 12(b)(1)
A district court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the court “lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Huntress v. United States, 810 Fed.Appx. 74, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)); Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.A.R.L., 790 F.3d 411, 416-17 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113); Shabaj v. Holder, 718 F.3d 48, 50 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005)). “‘[C]ourt[s] must take all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of [the] plaintiff,' but ‘jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting it.'” Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) (first quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Johnson, 461 F.3d 164, 171 (2d Cir. 2006); and then quoting APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir. 2003)), aff'd, 561 U.S. 247 (2010). Ultimately, “the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction ‘has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.'” Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc., 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113); see also Suarez v. Mosaic Sales Sols. U.S. Operating Co., 720 Fed.Appx. 52, 53 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Morrison, 547 F.3d at 170); Clayton v. United States, No. 18-CV-5867, 2020 WL 1545542, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (quoting Tandon, 752 F.3d at 243); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 369 F.Supp.3d 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Tandon, 752 F.3d at 243).
ii. 12(b)(6)
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe the complaint liberally, “accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Sacerdote v. N.Y. Univ., 9 F.4th 95, 106, 107 (2d Cir. 2021); Vaughn v. Phoenix House N.Y. Inc., 957 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2020) (same). A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S 544, 570 (2007); Bacon v. Phelps, 961 F.3d 533, 540 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Cavello Bay Reinsurance Ltd. v. Shubin Stein, 986 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Although all allegations contained in the Complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Vaughn, 957 F.3d at 145 (same). a. Plaintiffs lack standing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial