Gordon v. Sig Sauer, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-585 |
| Parties | DANTE GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIG SAUER, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Sig Sauer, Inc. designs and manufactures pistols for military, law enforcement, and civilian use. One pistol model, manufactured from 2014 to 2017, the P320, could allegedly "drop fire"—discharge a round of ammunition if dropped to the floor—a design defect. Dante Gordon alleges that he purchased his P320 in 2014. Gordon does not allege that his P320 fired after being dropped. Instead, Gordon alleges that he would not have purchased the P320, or would have paid less, if he knew that it was not "drop safe"; that he has stopped using his P320; and that his P320 has lost resale value.
Although Gordon alleges that Sig Sauer learned of the problem in internal testing before launching the P320 in 2014, he also alleges that in 2016, the United States Army notified Sig Sauer of the potential to drop-fire. In 2017, Sig Sauer implemented a Voluntary Upgrade Program that made modifications designed to address drop performance, without charging customers. Under the Program, customers had to send in their P320s to have the drop-fire issue fixed. Gordon has not sent in his P320. Sig Sauer changed the design for pistols made in 2017 and after. (Docket Entry No. 1).
Sig Sauer moved to dismiss. Gordon amended his original complaint, asserting claims for express and implied warranty breach, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Sig Sauer answered and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a plausible claim. Gordon argues that he has alleged facts sufficient for standing, and that the amended complaint allegations state plausible claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Texas law. Gordon sued on behalf of both himself and a nationwide class of P320 purchasers; Sig Sauer moved to strike Gordon's proposed class definitions or to narrow them to Texas purchasers. Gordon responded that it is premature to address the class definitions or personal jurisdiction as to putative class members.
After carefully reviewing the amended complaint; the motion to dismiss, response, and reply; the properly considered documents; and the applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss, and grants the motion to strike. (Docket Entry No. 35). Gordon must amend his complaint to conform to these rulings no later than October 28, 2019.
The motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction are denied. (Docket Entry No. 35). Sig Sauer's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The court grants the motion to dismiss for insufficient pleading as to:
The court denies Sig Sauer's motion to dismiss as to:
The motion to strike the class definitions is granted, as follows:
As to Gordon, individually, the implied warranty breach claim, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim based on implied warranty, the unjust enrichment claim, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims based on warranty breach and unconscionable conduct remain pending. As to the putative Texas class, the implied warranty breach claim, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim based on implied warranty, the unjust enrichment claim, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims based on warranty breach and unconscionable conduct remain pending. As to the nationwide class, only the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim based on unconscionable conduct remains pending.
The reasons for these rulings are stated in detail below.
The facts are drawn from Gordon's amended complaint allegations, accepted as true for this motion, and the documents referred in and central to those allegations. Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg. Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014).
Sig Sauer, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, designs and manufactures "firearms for military, law enforcement, and commercial markets," including "pistols, rifles, short barrel rifles, [and] accessories." (Docket Entry No. 34 at 4). The firearms are marketed and sold by licensed dealers. (Id.). In 2014, Sig Sauer began manufacturing the P320, a handgun with "a striker firing mechanism." (Id. at 1-2).
That year, Dante Gordon bought a P320 "from an ARS Outdoors store in Cypress, Texas." (Id. at 3). Before buying the pistol, Gordon "reviewed the portion of the [Sig Sauer] website concerning the P320"; "relied on [Sig Sauer's] marketing statements about the safety of the firearm"; and "understood" the "accompanying labels, disclosures, warranties, and marketing materials . . . as representations and warranties . . . that the P320 was properly designed, was 'drop safe[,]' and 'won't fire unless you want it to.'" (Id.).
Gordon alleges that Sig Sauer's "Safety Without Compromise marketing campaign" included the statement that "[f]rom the trigger, to the striker and even the magazine, the P320 won't fire unless you want it to." (Id. at 5 (internal quotation marks omitted)). He alleges that advertisements associated with the marketing campaign stated that the P320 would fire only after a trigger pull and was "drop safe." (Id. at 5-6). Gordon does not allege in what years or months this marketing campaign began or ended, or what statements he read and relied on when he bought his P320. (See id. at 3-6). Instead, he alleges that he "understood" what he saw on Sig Sauer's marketing materials and website as stating that the P320 was "drop safe." (Id. at 3).
The P320 Owner's Manual warned that "[i]f dropped, the pistol may fire," and that "[a]ny firearm may fire if dropped." (Docket Entry No. 36 at 3 (emphasis omitted)). It is unclear whether Gordon saw the Manual before making his P320 purchase. Gordon alleges that the P320 became a "popular and commercially successful pistol" used "by law enforcement agencies all over the country" and owned "by hundreds of thousands of civilians." (Docket Entry No. 34 at 1). In 2015, the United States Army contracted with Sig Sauer to manufacture the P320 for military use. (Id. at 2, 6).
Gordon alleges that the P320 model manufactured between 2014 and August 2017 had a design defect allowing it to "inadvertently" fire if dropped with a round in the chamber. (Id. at 1-2, 8). Because of unspecified "internal testing," Gordon alleges, Sig Sauer has known of the "defect since at least 2014." (Id. at 2).
In April 2016, after the Army "discovered that the SIG P320 pistol [model manufactured starting in 2014] would fire unintentionally" when dropped, the Army informed Sig Sauer, which promptly "modified the trigger mechanism" to fix the issue. (Id. at 6-7). Gordon alleges that this initial modification "only applied to military versions of the SIG P320." (Id.). Sig Sauer did not "implement the drop fire fix for its civilian pistols until [August] 2017, at which point it began manufacturing the P320 with a lighter trigger and modified sear." (Id. at 7-8). Gordon alleges that gun owners, law enforcement, and firearm dealers "replicated the drop fire incidents in their own testing" of pistols manufactured before 2017. (Id.).
Gordon alleges that, on August 4, 2017, Sig Sauer's Chief Executive Officer, Ron Cohen, released a statement that "[t]here have been zero (0) reported drop-related P320 incidents in the U.S. Commercial market." (Id. at 11). Days later, on August 8, 2017, Sig Sauer "announced a 'voluntary upgrade' for the P320 pistol," inviting P320 owners to send in their guns to enhance "overall safety including drop performance" by reducing trigger, sear, and striker weight. (Id. at 11, 14). Sig Sauer did not issue a mandatory recall. Instead, "[t]he voluntary upgrade was presented as purely optional, not urgent, and not mandatory." (Id. at 11).
Sig Sauer did not send individual notice to P320 owners of the Voluntary Upgrade Program to address the drop-fire problem. (Id. at 13). Instead, Sig Sauer posted information about the upgrade on its website. (Id. at 14-18). Gordon alleges that "[t]he only information about the drop fire design first appeared around August 8, 2017, [and] is buried in the Frequently Asked Questions [section] in [Sig Sauer's] website." (Id. at 16). That section describes why Sig Sauer offered the Voluntary Upgrade Program:
Through additional testing above and beyond standard American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Sporting Arms & Ammunition Institute...
To continue reading
Request your trial