IN RE WHIRLPOOL CORP. FRONT-LOADING WASHER
| Decision Date | 04 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:08-wp-65000. |
| Citation | 684 F. Supp.2d 942 |
| Parties | In re WHIRLPOOL CORP. FRONT-LOADING WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Allen Wong, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Brian D. Brooks, Jacqueline Sailer, Murray, Frank & Sailer, Steven L. Wittels, Jeremy Heisler, Sanford Wittels & Heisler, New York, NY, Brian G. Ruschel, Mark Schlachet, Cleveland, OH, George K. Lang, Paul M. Weiss, Freed & Weiss, Joseph P. Shea, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, Chicago, IL, James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, Media, PA, Jonathan Shub, Scott A. George, Seeger Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, Kevin B. Cartledge, Wilson & Coffey, Winston-Salem, NC, Lindsey H. Taylor, Friedman & Siegelbaum, Roseland, NJ, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Nashville, TN, Mark S. Fistos, Aronovitz Jaffee, Miami, FL, Peter L. Masnik, Kalikman & Masnik, Haddonfield, NJ, Richard J. Burke, St. Louis, MO, Steven R. Jaffe, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Courtney Cuillo, Miller Law Firm, Rochester, MI, E. Powell Miller, Mantese, Miller & Shea James E. Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, Chester, CT, Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, San Diego, CA, Matthew B. Borden, Liner, Yankelevitz, Sunshine & Regenstreif, San Francisco, CA, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, Media, PA, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Haverford, PA, for In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-loading Washer Products Liability Litigation.
Defendant Whirlpool Corporation moves this Court to dismiss a number of claims in the Plaintiffs' Master Class Action Complaint. Doc. 21. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Doc. 36. While the Defendant's motion to dismiss was pending, this Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Master Class Action Complaint ("MCAC"), which the Plaintiffs filed on September 25, 2009.1 Doc. 66. The Court's analysis considers the Defendant's motion to dismiss as it applies to the newly-amended MCAC.
In this multidistrict products liability litigation, the Plaintiffs claim that Whirlpool has violated various state and federal laws in the marketing and sale of its front-loading washing machines because of alleged defects in the machines that lead to mold problems. In general, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, tortious breach of warranty, negligent design and failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and fraud-based violations of numerous state consumer protection and deceptive trade practices statutes. Doc. 66 at 2.
In its motion to dismiss, Defendant Whirlpool says that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under each of the relevant state consumer protection statutes, that certain Plaintiffs fail to state claims for breach of express or implied warranty, that all of the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment, and that the Ohio Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for negligent design and failure to warn. Defendant Whirlpool also says that Ohio Plaintiff Allison and California Plaintiff Schaeffer were not properly added to any underlying complaint and therefore, must be dismissed from the MCAC.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a court should assume the veracity" of "well-pleaded factual allegations," but it need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides the general pleading standard and requires only that a complaint "contain . . . a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citations omitted). Rule 8 does not require "detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). The plausibility requirement is not a "probability requirement," but requires "more than a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. The Supreme Court has explained the line between possible and plausible: "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. (citations and internal quotations omitted).
This putative class action arises out of Defendant Whirlpool's manufacture, marketing, and sale of front-loading washing machines. The Plaintiffs, consumers who purchased Whirlpool machines, say that contrary to Whirlpool's various representations about the quality of the machines, those machines suffer from multiple defects. These defects allegedly cause the machines to accumulate mold and mildew and to give off moldy odors, damaging the Plaintiffs' clothing and rendering the machines potentially dangerous and ultimately useless.
In selling its front-loading washing machines through various retailers, Whirlpool provides a one-year factory warranty. Doc. 66 at 5. In addition, Whirlpool provides a "limited lifetime warranty on the stainless steel drum" for most of its Duet and Duet HT washing machines. Doc. 66 at 6. Whirlpool also sells the washing machines at issue as "High Efficiency" and labels them as "ENERGY STAR" complaint. Doc. 66 at 6. Finally, Whirlpool provides each purchaser with a Use & Care Guide. Doc. 66 at 7. The Plaintiffs say that some of these Guides fail to mention potential mold problems altogether, while others advise only that mold and mildew issues may arise if the consumer uses regular detergent instead of the recommended High Efficiency detergent. Doc. 66 at 7.
Despite these various representations, however, the Plaintiffs say that the washing machines suffer from numerous design defects that cause mold and mildew build-up even when consumers use the machines as instructed. Doc. 66 at 8. Specifically, the Plaintiffs say that the machines fail to: (1) properly drain water and eliminate lingering moisture, (2) sufficiently rinse away detergent and fabric softener residue, (3) prevent accumulation of residues and growths, (4) provide dispenser compartments with proper detergent and fabric softener fill lines, and (5) effectively clean themselves. Doc. 66 at 8-9. The Plaintiffs also generally point to defects in the stainless steel drums and door seals that they believe play a role in causing the mold problems. Id.
In addition to manufacturing the machines, Whirlpool has also developed several products to treat mold problems in front-loading washers. For example, Whirlpool sells "affresh," a tablet that consumers can run through an empty washing machine to remove and prevent odor-causing residue. Doc. 66 at 12. Whirlpool also sells a more comprehensive affresh washing cleaner kit that includes both tablets and cleaning cloths. Id. The Plaintiffs view these products as further evidence of Whirlpool's knowledge of and attempt to profit from the defects in its machines.
The Plaintiffs purchased their Whirlpool front-loading washing machines between May 2003 and August 2006. Doc. 66 at 15-28. All experienced various problems with mold and mildew buildup, made complaints to Whirlpool or to a Whirlpool dealer, attempted various remedies, and ultimately filed suit against Whirlpool.
On December 2, 2008, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed a transfer order, relocating and centralizing four such cases before this Court. Doc. 1. On February 13, 2009, these named plaintiffs and twelve others filed a Master Class Action Complaint in this Court. Doc. 7. On March 13, 2009, Whirlpool filed a partial motion to dismiss. Doc. 21. Although the Plaintiffs have since twice amended the MCAC, the parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss and it is now ripe for ruling.
The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Master Class Action Complaint asserts 21 causes of action against Defendant Whirlpool. Specifically, Counts I-IV assert claims on behalf the Ohio Plaintiffs for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, tortious breach of warranty, negligent design and failure to warn, and unjust enrichment. Doc. 66 at 33-37. Counts V and VI assert claims on behalf of all non-Ohio Plaintiffs for violations of the written and implied warranty provisions of the Magnuson Moss Act. Doc. 66 at 38-40. Counts VII and VIII assert claims on behalf of all non-Ohio Plaintiffs for breach of state law express and implied warranties. Doc. 66 at 40-43. Count IX asserts claims on behalf of all non-Ohio Plaintiffs for unjust enrichment. Doc. 66 at 44. Counts X and XI assert claims on behalf of the California Plaintiffs for breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Act. Doc. 66 at 45-49. Finally, Counts XII-XXI assert claims on behalf of Plaintiffs from Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, North Carolina, Arizona, and Texas, alleging violations of each state's consumer protection or deceptive trade practices law. Doc. 66 at 50-65.
Given the complex nature of the Second Amended MCAC as well as the overlapping...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montich v. Miele USA, Inc.
...WL 37134687, at *4, *5, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102413, at *14, *18 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 4, 2009); In re Whirlpool Corp. Front–Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 684 F.Supp.2d 942, 956, 960 (N.D.Ohio 2009); Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 10–711, 2011 WL 3941387, at *4, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXI......
-
In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.
...economic loss against a manufacturer with whom they are not in privity of contract. See In re Whirlpool Corp. Front–Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 684 F.Supp.2d 942, 951 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (denying the defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action claim for negligence against a re......
-
Melnick v. Tamko Bldg. Prods., Inc.
...2014) ; Savett v. Whirlpool Corp. , 2012 WL 3780451, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2012) ; In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litig. , 684 F. Supp. 2d 942, 951-53 (N.D. Ohio 2009) ; Bower v. International Bus. Machines, Inc. , 495 F. Supp. 2d 837, 844 (S.D. Ohio 2007)......
-
In re Toyota Motor Corp.. Unintended Acceleration Mktg.
...definition) did not occur would effectively gut state laws prohibiting fraud-by-omission.” In re Whirlpool Corp. Front–Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 684 F.Supp.2d 942, 961 (N.D.Ohio 2009). Similarly, Rule 9(b)'s requirement may also be relaxed as to matters within the opposing party's......