In re Sony Grand Wega Kdf–e A10/A20 Series Rear Projection Hdtv Television Litig..

Decision Date30 November 2010
Docket NumberCase Nos. 08–CV–2276–IEG (WVG),Case Nos. 09–CV–0736–IEG (WVG),Case Nos. 09–CV–2703–IEG (WVG),Case Nos. 09–CV–0620–IEG (WVG)
Citation758 F.Supp.2d 1077
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California


Lynn Hubbard, III, Law Offices of Lynn Hubbard, Chico, CA, for Plaintiff.


IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint (“FACC”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), brought by Defendants Sony Corporation of America (“SCA”), Sony Electronics Inc. (“SEI”), and Sony Corporation (“SC,” and collectively, “Sony” or Defendants). Doc. No. 52. Plaintiffs have opposed the motion, Doc. No. 55, and Defendants have replied to that opposition. Doc. No. 56. Both parties appeared before the Court for oral argument on November 8, 2010. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE Defendants' motion to dismiss.


This case is a putative class action. Plaintiffs are a group of individuals who purchased and used Sony Grand WEGA KDF–E A10 and A20 Series televisions that were manufactured by Defendants and offered for sale beginning in the second half of 2005 (2005 Models” or “televisions”). Sony marketed the televisions as offering superior picture quality to that of standard televisions and being capable of taking full advantage of High–Definition Television (“HDTV”) programming.1 Plaintiffs paid $2,500 or more for the televisions.

Sony expressly warranted the televisions for one year. The express, limited warranty (“Express” or “Limited Warranty”) provided that, at the conclusion of the one-year Express Warranty period, all express and implied warranties would be waived.2

At sometime after the Express Warranty period ended, the televisions began to display anomalies, including bright blue, yellow, and green spots, stains, and haze. Those anomalies were allegedly caused by a defect inherent in the LCD rear-projection technology utilized in the televisions' “optical block”—the component part of the televisions that causes the video signal to be displayed as a picture on the viewing screen. Replacing an optical block in the 2005 Model televisions costs approximately $1,500, including labor. Plaintiffs claim they requested that Sony, free of charge, repair the optical blocks in the malfunctioning televisions. However, because the alleged defect did not manifest itself until after the warranty expired, Sony refused to repair the problem at no cost.


Nearly two years and four complaints after its inception, this matter lingers in the pleading stage.3 Plaintiffs filed the original complaint on December 8, 2008, which was initially assigned to Judge Whelan.

Sony moved to dismiss the original complaint. Docket No. 4. The parties thereafter agreed that if Defendants withdrew that motion then Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint. Doc. No. 7. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on February 18, 2009, Doc. No. 8, and Sony filed a second motion to dismiss on March 20, 2009. Doc. No. 12. Plaintiffs' counsel filed two other related actions in this court: (1) Bolton et al. v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., et al., No. 09–CV–0620, on March 25, 2009, and (2) Bashore, et al. v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., et al., No. 09–CV–0736, on April 10, 2009. Soon thereafter, Plaintiffs moved to consolidate all three actions. Doc. No. 17. On July 30, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to consolidate and denied Sony's then-pending motion to dismiss as moot. Doc. No. 25.

On August 14, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint alleging eight causes of action against Defendants. Doc. No. 26. In short, Plaintiffs allege that Sony knew about the defect in the optical block at the time the televisions were sold, making the televisions defective upon delivery. Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on September 3, 2009. Doc. No. 27.

Judge Whelan stayed the case on October 28, 2010, pending the outcome of a referral to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Doc. Nos. 32 & 37. Judge Whelan lifted the stay on November 17, 2010, Doc. No. 37. On February 2, 2010, Plaintiffs moved to consolidate a third related case filed in this CourtMayer v. Sony Corp. of America, Inc., et al., No. 09–CV–2703— with the previously consolidated cases and to appoint interim counsel. Doc. No. 38. Judge Whelan granted those motions. Doc. No. 48.

The parties later filed a joint motion to strike three paragraphs of the complaint regarding confidential sources at Sony, which Judge Whelan granted. Doc. Nos. 40 & 41.

On August 6, 2010, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed, with leave to amend, seven of Plaintiffs' eight causes of action. Judge Whelan denied the motion to dismiss the claim for breach of Express Warranty.

On August 12, 2010, the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Gonzalez.

Plaintiffs filed the FACC on August 30, 2010, which sets forth the same eight causes of action included in the first consolidated complaint: (1) Unlawful and Unfair Business Acts and Practices in Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17200–17210; (2) Untrue and Misleading Advertising in Violation of California's False Advertising Law (“FAL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17500–17509; (3) Unlawful Practice in Sale of Consumer Goods in Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ.Code § 1750–1784; (4) Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Under the Various State Laws in Which Class Members Reside; (5) Violations of California Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song–Beverly Act or “SBA”), Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1790–1795.8; (6) Violations of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (“Magnuson–Moss Act or “MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312; (7) Breach of Express Warranty; and (8) Breach of Implied Warranty. Defendants filed the current motion to dismiss all eight of the FACC's claims on September 9, 2010. 4 Doc. No. 52. Plaintiffs timely filed an opposition to the motion, Doc. No. 55, to which Defendants timely replied. Doc. No. 56.

Plaintiffs' FACC added two named plaintiffs. One of them is a California resident, bringing the number of named plaintiffs from California to two. Doc. No. 51. Plaintiffs also attempted to strengthen their allegations that Sony was aware of the defect based on (1) certain patent applications filed by Sony and (2) Sony's experience with earlier-model televisions that Sony began selling in 2003 (“Predecessor Models” or 2003 Models”), which “utilize[d] the same core technology in the design of their Optical Blocks” and experienced problems due to the same defect. Id. ¶¶ 64–66. The remainder of the FACC is identical to the First Consolidated Complaint.

DISCUSSIONI. Legal Standard

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (2009). A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir.2001). The court must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true, and must construe them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir.1996). The Court is not bound, however, to accept “legal conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949–50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). However, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citation omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (citation omitted). In spite of the deference the court is bound to pay to the plaintiff's allegations, it is not proper for the court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged or that defendants have violated the ... laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983).

But [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 1950. A claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

Complaints alleging fraud must satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Rule 9(b) requires that in all averments of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 cases
  • Limitada v. Hollywood Auto Mall, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 20 Mayo 2013
    ...does not set forth what laws Defendants have allegedly violated. See, e.g., In re Sony Grand Wega KDF-E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litig., 758 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1091 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ("Throughout the FACC, Plaintiffs allege that Sony violated several laws, but they do no......
  • Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 6 Enero 2012
    ...equitable relief. Breach of an obligation imposed by state law will support a claim under the Magnuson–Moss Act. In re Sony Grand Wega, 758 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1101 (S.D.Cal.2010) (“The Magnuson—Moss Act provides a federal cause of action for state law express and implied warranty claims”); In ......
  • In re Wellpoint, Inc. Out–Of–Network “UCR” Rates Litig., MDL 09–2074 PSG (FFMx).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 6 Septiembre 2012
    ...previously made and to raise new arguments that were previously available. See In re Sony Grand WEGA KDF–E A10/A20 Series Rear Projection HDTV Television Litig., 758 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1098 (S.D.Cal.2010) (“When Plaintiffs filed the FACC, it superseded their previous complaint, and Sony was th......
  • In re Conagra Foods Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 15 Noviembre 2012
    ...As courts have concluded, the statute provides a federal cause of action for state law implied warranty claims. In re Sony Grand Wega, 758 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1101 (S.D.Cal.2010); see also Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 384 F.3d 402, 405 (7th Cir.2004) (noting that Magnuson–Moss borrows state l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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