In re Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Mktg. Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.

• Decision Date: 08 March 2022
• Docket Number: Master 4:20-MD-02936-SRB
• Parties: IN RE SMITTY'S/CAM2 303 TRACTOR HYDRAULIC FLUID MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2936
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

IN RE SMITTY'S/CAM2 303 TRACTOR HYDRAULIC FLUID MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2936

Master No. 4:20-MD-02936-SRB

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

March 8, 2022

ORDER

STEPHEN R. BOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Smitty's Supply, Inc. (“Smitty's”) and CAM2 International LLC's (“CAM2”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint. (Doc. #279.) The Court heard oral arguments on this motion on March, 1, 2022. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND 3

II. CHOICE OF LAW 7

1. Law Applicable to Contract Claims .......................................................... 8

2. Law Applicable to Tort Claims .............................................................. 10

III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................... 12

IV. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 13

A. Standing ............................................................................................................... 13

1. Injury-in-Fact .......................................................................................... 14

2. Injunctive Relief ..................................................................................... 15

3. Unpurchased Products ............................................................................ 16

B. Failure to Plead Damages .................................................................................... 18

1. Property Damage .................................................................................... 19

2. Purchase Price Damage .......................................................................... 20

3. Damages Under State Law ..................................................................... 21

C. Fraud-Based Claims (Counts V-VII & VIII-XLII) ............................................ 22

D. Common Law Claims (Counts I-VII) ................................................................. 23

1. Boilerplate Recitation (Counts I-VII) .................................................... 24

2. Breach of Warranty Claims (Counts II-IV) ............................................ 24

a. Lack of Privity ................................................................................. 24

b. Lack of Pre-Suit Notice ................................................................... 28

3. Breach of Express Warranty Claims (Count II) ...................................... 30

a. Existence of an Express Warranty ................................................... 30

b. Unactionable Puffery ....................................................................... 32

4. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness (Count IV) ................................ 34

5. Unjust Enrichment (Count V) ................................................................. 35

a. States Recognizing the Cause of Action .......................................... 35

b. States Requiring Privity ................................................................... 37

6. Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count VI) ............................................... 39

7. Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VII) ............................................... 40

E. Statutory Fraud Claims (Counts VIII-XLII) ....................................................... 40

1. Personal Use ........................................................................................... 41

2. Prior Notice ............................................................................................. 42

3. Public Interest ......................................................................................... 45

F. State Product Liability Claims ............................................................................. 46

1. State Claims Displaced by Product Liability Acts .................................. 47

a. Connecticut ...................................................................................... 47

b. Indiana ............................................................................................. 48

c. Kansas .............................................................................................. 49

d. Louisiana .......................................................................................... 50

e. Mississippi ....................................................................................... 50

f. New Jersey ....................................................................................... 52

g. Ohio ................................................................................................. 53

2. Ohio Plaintiffs' Manufacturing Defect Claim (Count XLIX) ................ 55

3. Louisiana Plaintiffs' Claims (Counts LII-LIV) ...................................... 55

G. Direct File Plaintiffs ............................................................................................. 55

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 56

I. BACKGROUND

This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arises from the manufacture, sale, and marketing of tractor hydraulic fluid (“THF”), a multifunctional lubricant designed to offer certain protective benefits when used in tractors and heavy equipment as a hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid, and gear oil. Plaintiffs represent a putative class of consumers who purchased at least one of four allegedly defective products at issue in this case: Smitty's Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid (“Smitty's Super Trac 303”), Smitty's Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid (“Smitty's Super S 303”), Cam2's Promax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil (“Cam 2 Promax 303”), and Cam2's 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil (“Cam2 303”) (collectively, the “303 THF Products”). Defendants Smitty's and CAM2 manufactured the 303 THF Products, which were sold nationwide by multiple retailers under various label names.

Plaintiffs initiated suit against the manufacturers and retailers in multiple federal district courts where the 303 THF products were sold. On February 11, 2020, Defendants requested all pending actions be consolidated and transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. On June 2, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“J.P.M.L.”) consolidated the eight then-pending actions to the Western District of Missouri.^[1] See In re: Smitty's/CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 2936, 2020 WL 2848377, at *1 (J.M.P.L. June 2, 2020). Following the creation of this MDL, Plaintiffs filed another lawsuit, Feldkamp v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., No. 20-cv-02177, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which was subsequently transferred to this Court. This Court's Order dated August 3, 2020 permitted Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint that would serve to supersede all prior pleadings in the individual cases. This Court's August 3, 2020 Order permitted direct joinder of new claims through the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed three subsequent amended consolidated complaints. Defendants moved to dismiss (Doc. #253 and Doc. #237) the Third Amended Consolidated Complaint (Doc. #218), but that motion was rendered moot by the filing of the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint (“FACC”), which is the operative complaint.

All Plaintiffs from all states assert the following claims against Defendants:

Count I Negligence

Count II Breach of Express Warranty

Count III Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Count IV Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

Count V Unjust Enrichment

Count VI Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Count VII Negligent Misrepresentation

Plaintiffs additionally assert the following state-specific claims on behalf of themselves and their proposed state classes:

Count VIII Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann § 4-88-101

Count IX California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof Code § 17200

Count X California False and Misleading Advertising, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17500

Count XI California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code. § 1770

Count XII Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101

Count XIII Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S.A. § 42-110g^[2]

Count XIV Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.201

Count XV Florida Misleading Advertising Law, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 817.41 Count XVI Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, ILCS Ch. 815, ACT 505, et seq.

Count XVII Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code. Ann. § 24-5-0.5-5(b)^[3]

Count XVIII Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. § 50-623

Count XIX Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.220

Count XX Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.901

Count XXI Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325F.67

Count XXII Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010

Count XXIII Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601

Count XXIV Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-301

Count XXV New York Consumer Protection Law, N.Y. Code § 20-700

Count XXVI North Carolina Consumer Protection Act, N.C. G.S. §

...