Guajardo v. Skechers USA, Inc.

Decision Date30 November 2020
Docket NumberNo. 4:19-cv-04104-SLD-JEH,4:19-cv-04104-SLD-JEH
Citation503 F.Supp.3d 746
Parties Rikki GUAJARDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SKECHERS USA, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois

Gregory F. Coleman, Lisa A. White, Greg Coleman Law PC, Knoxville, TN, Kyle Alan Shamberg, Carlson Lynch LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Shannon M. Barrett, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Hannah Y. Chanoine, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, Stephen R. Niemeyer, Lewis Brisbois, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

ORDER

SARA DARROW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Defendant Skechers USA, Inc.'s ("Skechers") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), ECF No. 13, and Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19. For the reasons that follow, the motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND1

In January 2018, Plaintiff Rikki Guajardo purchased a pair of Skechers Energy Lights ("Energy Lights" or "shoes")—children's footwear with light-up features—for her son at a Kohl's retailer in Illinois. The Skechers-designed shoebox included information about the available light colors and how to switch between them, the existence of an on/off switch, the duration of the light, and the existence of an enclosed USB cable but provided no safety warnings about the product. FAC ¶ 20, ECF No. 11. The shoe's interior label included a CE marking, which indicated the "[s]hoes [we]re in conformity with the health, safety, and environmental protection standards for products sold within the European Economic Area." Id. ¶ 56. The shoes may have been sold with an attached hangtag that said, "Do not overcharge or leave plugged in overnight" but did not include any other safety warning. Id. ¶ 57.

Guajardo's son wore the Energy Lights several times. On one occasion, the heat radiating from the back of the shoes was so painful and uncomfortable that Guajardo's son had to remove the shoes. A different time, the shoes "became so hot that they caused a painful heat blister on the back

of his foot." Id. ¶ 60. Guajardo alleges the shoes contain a design or manufacturing defect—"an inadequate electrical system powered by batteries, which can lead to multiple failure modes, including a dangerous electrical or thermal event that can lead to heat, fire or the release of electrolyte vapors that can cause skin burns." Id. ¶ 6. Guajardo contacted Skechers' customer service. She was instructed to return the shoes to Kohl's, but Kohl's would not accept them because they had been worn.

The parties are diverse—Guajardo resides in Spring Valley, Illinois, and is an Illinois citizen, and Skechers is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California. Guajardo alleges class damages exceeding $5,000,000.00 in the aggregate. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (extending federal subject-matter jurisdiction to proposed class actions with damages exceeding five million dollars when at least one member of the class is diverse from the defendant).2 Guajardo brings suit alleging breach of contract and common law warranty, FAC ¶¶ 76–83; unjust enrichment, id. ¶¶ 84–89; negligence, id. ¶¶ 90–103; violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), 815 ILCS 505/1 – 505/12, FAC ¶¶ 104–122; breach of the express warranty, 810 ILCS 5/2-313, FAC ¶¶ 123–136; breach of the implied warranty, 810 ILCS 5/2-314, FAC ¶¶ 137–149; and violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"), 815 ILCS 510/1–7, FAC ¶¶ 150–165. Skechers moves to dismiss all claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 4–15, ECF No. 14.

DISCUSSION
I. Motion for Leave to File a Reply

Skechers has moved for leave to file a Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, arguing that a reply is needed because "[Guajardo's] opposition mischaracterizes the law and positions taken by [Skechers]." Mot. Leave File Reply 1, ECF No. 19. Guajardo has not filed any opposition to this motion. For all motions other than summary judgment, "[n]o reply to the response is permitted without leave of Court." CDIL-LR 7.1(B)(3). "Typically, reply briefs are permitted if the party opposing a motion has introduced new and unexpected issues in his response to the motion, and the [c]ourt finds that a reply from the moving party would be helpful to its disposition of the motion." Shefts v. Petrakis , No. 10-cv-1104, 2011 WL 5930469, at *8 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2011). A court may also permit a reply "in the interest of completeness." Zhan v. Hogan , No. 4:18-cv-04126-SLD-JEH, 2018 WL 9877970, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2018). Because the proposed Reply would be helpful to the Court and in the interest of completeness, Skechers' Motion for Leave to File a Reply is GRANTED.

II. Motion to Dismiss
a. Legal Standard

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Indep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp. , 665 F.3d 930, 934 (7th Cir. 2012). A court will dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In determining whether such a claim has been stated, a court should consider the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations and "determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The allegations must "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Tamayo v. Blagojevich , 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted).

b. Analysis3

i. Count VI: Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( 810 ILCS 5/2-314 )

Skechers argues that Guajardo's breach of implied warranty claim fails because Guajardo purchased the shoes from Kohl's, not Skechers. Without privity of contract between the parties, Guajardo cannot recover economic damages. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 7–9 (citing Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc. , 353 F.3d 516, 525 (7th Cir. 2003) ).4 Guajardo argues that privity is not required when a buyer relies on a manufacturer's "direct dealings,"—i.e., product labeling and marketing materials. Mem. Opp'n Mot. Dismiss 3, ECF No. 185 (citing Sheeley v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. , No. 17-cv-3076, 2017 WL 5517352 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2017), Elward v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc. , 214 F. Supp. 3d 701, 706 (N.D. Ill. 2016), and In Re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig. , 155 F. Supp. 3d 772, 806–07 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ).

"[A] warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind." 810 ILCS 5/2-314. In Illinois, "privity of contract is a prerequisite to recover economic damages for breach of implied warranty." Voelker , 353 F.3d at 525 (citing Rothe v. Maloney Cadillac, Inc. , 119 Ill.2d 288, 116 Ill.Dec. 207, 518 N.E.2d 1028, 1029–30 (1988) ). In Rothe , the Illinois Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in Szajna v. General Motors Corp. , 115 Ill.2d 294, 104 Ill.Dec. 898, 503 N.E.2d 760 (1986) to conclude that the plaintiff, who had purchased a car from an independent dealer, had no buyer-seller relationship and therefore no cause of action for implied warranty of merchantability against the manufacturer. Rothe , 116 Ill.Dec. 207, 518 N.E.2d at 1029–30. "[W]ith respect to purely economic loss, the UCC article II implied warranties give a buyer of goods a potential cause of action only against his immediate seller." Rothe , 116 Ill.Dec. 207, 518 N.E.2d at 1029 ; cf. Sienna Court Condo. Ass'n v. Champion Aluminum Corp. , 432 Ill.Dec. 569, 129 N.E.3d 1112, 1121 (Ill. 2018) ("The purchaser of a newly constructed home may not pursue a claim for breach of an implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where there is no contractual relationship.").

Guajardo argues she does not need to establish privity because Skechers aggressively marketed directly to consumers using print and TV campaigns. Resolving this argument requires delving into the Illinois cases cited in Guajardo's direct dealing cases. In In Re Rust-Oleum , the court concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations of "direct dealings" with Rust-Oleum "through its agents, dealers, and/or representatives" as well as "direct marketing campaign to consumers" were sufficient to defeat the manufacturer's motion to dismiss based on lack of privity. 155 F. Supp. 3d at 806–07 (citing TRW, Inc. v. Dart Indus., Inc. , No. 84 C 3049, 1986 WL 3327, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 1986) ). TRW itself did not explain the privity exception but instead cited to Abco Metals Corp. v. J.W. Imports Co. , 560 F. Supp. 125, 128 (N.D. Ill. 1982).

In Abco , 560 F. Supp. at 127, the plaintiff met with the manufacturer's engineer and the manufacturer's distributor to discuss purchasing a wire chopper made to certain specifications. The manufacturer agreed to build the chopper and guaranteed that it would meet the plaintiff's requirements. Id. The plaintiff directly contacted the manufacturer to discuss problems with the chopper's performance and then sued for breach of implied warranty. The court concluded that privity was not required when "a direct relationship [existed] between the manufacturer and the seller, or where ... the manufacturer knew the identity, purpose and requirements of the dealer's customer and manufactured or delivered the goods specifically to meet those requirements." Id. at 128 (quoting Frank's Maint. & Eng'g, Inc. v. C.A. Roberts Co. , 86 Ill.App.3d 980, 42 Ill.Dec. 25, 408 N.E.2d 403, 412 (1980) (citation omitted)).

In Elward v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. , the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of consumers, alleged Electrolux dishwashers overheated and caused...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Carder v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 31 Agosto 2021
    ...and the end-consumer is primarily through representations in marketing materials or advertisements. See Guajardo v. Skechers USA, Inc., 503 F. Supp. 3d 746, 752–53 (C.D. Ill. 2020) ; Redmon v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 20 C 6626, 2020 WL 9396529, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2020).22 Plaintiffs als......
  • Larry Trover Produce, Inc. v. Nutrien AG Sols.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
    • 28 Febrero 2022
    ...In re VTech Data Breach Litigation, No. 15 CV 10889, 2018 WL 1863953, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2018); Guajardo v. Skechers USA, Inc., 503 F.Supp.3d 746, 753 (C.D. Ill. 2020). Our sister courts across this state have interpreted this exception to the privity requirement to apply to “recent ......
  • Becoat v. PNC Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 31 Marzo 2023
    ... ... Mud ... Slingers, Inc. , 279 Ga. 808, 809 (2005). That is the ... place “where the ... of deceptive conduct. Guajardo v. Skechers USA, ... Inc. , 503 F.Supp.3d 746, 754 (C.D. Ill. 2020) ... ...
  • Sloan v. Anker Innovations Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 9 Enero 2024
    ... ... Borsellino v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. , 477 F.3d ... 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2007). “A claim that ‘sounds ... Nestle USA, Inc ., 962 F.3d 60, 71 (1st Cir. 2020) ... (stating a claim under ... have disclosed the alleged defect.” Guajardo v ... Skechers USA, Inc ., 503 F.Supp.3d 746, 754 (C.D. Ill ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT