Gonzalez v. Drew Indus. Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 May 2007
• Docket Number: Case No. CV 06–08233 DDP (JWJx).
• Citation: 750 F.Supp.2d 1061
• Parties: Victoria GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,v.DREW INDUSTRIES INC., a Delaware corporation; Kinro, Inc., an Ohio corporation; Kinro Texas Limited Partnership, a Texas limited partnership, d/b/a Better Bath Components; and Skyline Corporation, an Indiana corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

750 F.Supp.2d 1061

Victoria GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.DREW INDUSTRIES INC., a Delaware corporation; Kinro, Inc., an Ohio corporation; Kinro Texas Limited Partnership, a Texas limited partnership, d/b/a Better Bath Components; and Skyline Corporation, an Indiana corporation, Defendants.

Case No. CV 06–08233 DDP (JWJx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

May 10, 2007.

Amanda M. Steiner, Dylan Hughes, Eric H. Gibbs, Matthew B. George, Todd I. Espinosa, Girard Gibbs LLP, San Francisco, CA, John M. Parisi, Shamberg Johnson & Bergman, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.Jill Pavian Rubin, Nahla B. Rajan, Peter Burr Gelblum, Valentine A. Shalamitski, Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties and considering all the arguments therein, the Court denies the motion and adopt the following order.

I. BACKGROUNDA. Factual History

In November 2005, Victoria Gonzalez, the plaintiff, purchased a manufactured home produced by defendants Skyline Corporation and Skyline Homes. (FAC, ¶ 26.) The home featured a bathtub made of ABS plastic produced by defendants Kinro, Inc., Kinro Texas Limited Partnership, and their parent company, Drew Industries, under the brand name “Better Bath.” ( Id., ¶ 19.)

Defendants affix two stickers to each ABS bathtub before distributing them; one certifies that the bathtub conforms to ASTM E–162, and the other describes the manufacturer's warranty, and states that the bathtub was “tested for flammability in accordance with HUD Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Section 3280.203(a)(6),” and that “test results meet or exceed ASTM E–162 surface flammability of materials using a radiant heat energy source.” ( Id., ¶¶ 21, 22.)

Defendants Skyline Homes, Inc. and its parent company, Skyline Corporation, produce manufactured homes and install Better Bath ABS bathtubs in those homes. ( Id., ¶¶ 9, 10, 26.) To comply with HUD standards, Skyline affixes a “date plate” to each manufactured home it produces to certify that the components comply with applicable HUD standards. ( Id., ¶ 23.) Skyline also provides a “Full 15–Month Warranty” to purchasers of its manufactured homes, which states defects in the home will be corrected without charge within a reasonable time. ( Id., ¶ 24.)

In her original Complaint, plaintiff alleged that the ABS bathtub in her manufactured home does not meet the Federal flammability standard under 24 C.F.R. § 3280.203(b)(6). ( Id., ¶ 28.) On December 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court, asserting a concealment claim on behalf of a nationwide class and claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) on behalf of a California subclass. (Pl.'s Opp'n 4:18–21.) Also, on December 27, 2006, plaintiff served notice on each of defendants of the warranty claims and CLRA claims she intended to assert on behalf of the classes. ( Id., 4:21–3.)

On February 15, 2007, plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants, and added claims for violation of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and violation of the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. ( Id., 4:24–7.) Plaintiff added a request for damages under the CLRA, and added defendant Skyline Homes, Inc., a Skyline Corporation subsidiary. ( Id., 4:27–5:1.) Based on notices she sent defendants on December 27, 2006, plaintiff alleges in the FAC that she served each of the defendants with notice of the ABS bathtub defect and that they have had “reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, but have failed to do so.” (FAC, ¶¶ 54, 61, 64, 79.)

On March 23, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims for relief of the FAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. LEGAL STANDARDA. Motion to Dismiss

Dismissal under Federal, Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is appropriate “only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Newman v. Universal Pictures, 813 F.2d 1519, 1521–22 (9th Cir.1987). (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)). Accordingly, the Court must “accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 923 (9th Cir.2001). However, the Court need not accept conclusory legal assertions as true. Benson v. Ariz. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 673 F.2d 272, 275–76 (9th Cir.1982).

B. Preemption

The origins of preemption are found in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. art VI, cl.2. This Constitutional provision explains that the laws of the federal government take precedence over state laws on the same matter and in effect invalidate state laws when they conflict with federal law.

The general rule is that federal law does not displace existing state law. Preemption is the exception to this rule. As the Supreme Court in Michigan Canners & Freezers Ass'n. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Board, 467 U.S. 461, 469, 104 S.Ct. 2518, 81 L.Ed.2d 399 (1984) noted:

[f]ederal law may pre-empt state law in any of three ways. First, in enacting the federal law, Congress may explicitly define the extent to which it intends to pre-empt state law Second, even in the absence of express pre-emptive language Congress may indicate an intent to occupy an entire field of regulation, in which case the States must leave all regulatory activity in that area to the Federal Government. Finally, if Congress has not displaced state regulation entirely, it may nonetheless pre-empt state law to the extent that the state law actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict arises when compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, or where the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 [61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581] (1941)) (balance of citations omitted).

See also California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 107 S.Ct. 683, 93 L.Ed.2d 613 (1987); Louisiana Public Service Com'n. v. F.C.C., 476 U.S. 355, 106 S.Ct. 1890, 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 104 S.Ct. 2694, 81 L.Ed.2d 580 (1984).

There are two main prongs of preemption analysis. See Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982). First, the Court examines the federal statute in question to see if the law contains an express preemption provision. See id. Express preemption analysis involves using statutory interpretation techniques to determine the extent of preemption described by the clause. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 217, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004). If there is no express provision, the Court looks for implied preemption. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992).

Implied preemption takes two forms: field preemption and conflict preemption. See Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 131 L.Ed.2d 385 (1995). In field preemption, a federal regulation is so pervasive that it occupies an entire field and allows for no state action in the area. English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78–79, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990). Conflict preemption looks at whether the state law makes it either impossible to follow the federal law or provides a significant obstacle to adhering to the federal law. Freightliner, 514 U.S. at 287, 115 S.Ct. 1483.

There are also two prongs to conflict preemption analysis: impossibility and obstacle. Id. When a state law makes it impossible to comply with a federal law, there is a clear conflict between the two and the state law is preempted. Id. The other branch of conflict preemption involves state laws that “prevent or frustrate the accomplishment of a federal objective.” Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 873, 120 S.Ct. 1913, 146 L.Ed.2d 914 (2000). Federal law thus preempts state law that “stand[s] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objective of Congress.” Id. (citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941)).

The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that “despite the variety of these opportunities for federal preeminence, we have never assumed lightly that Congress has derogated state regulation, but instead have addressed claims of pre-emption with the starting presumption that Congress does not intend to supplant state law.” N.Y. State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 654, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 131 L.Ed.2d 695 (1995). “Accordingly, the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone of any preemption analysis.” Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608 (citations omitted).

III. ANALYSIS1. Whether Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint is Preempted by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act

The first issue raised by the parties is whether a class action complaint seeking state law relief for breach of warranty and consumer protection laws is properly brought where violations of a Federal manufactured housing standard gave rise to the alleged breach.¹ Based on the scope of the preemption provisions and the savings clauses of the Act, and the lack of either field or conflict preemption in this case, the Court...