Mendoza v. Electrolux Home Prods.

• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-01133-DAD-BAM
• Decision Date: 06 September 2022
• Parties: ERIKA MENDOZA, et al., an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

1

ERIKA MENDOZA, et al., an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01133-DAD-BAM

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 6, 2022

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTIONS TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANTS SHARP MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA AND SHARP APPLIANCES THAILAND LIMITED

(Doc. Nos. 196, 198, 225)

This matter is before the court on two pending motions to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Sharp Manufacturing Company of America and Sharp Appliances Thailand Limited on November 30 2020.^[1] (Doc. Nos. 196, 198). Pursuant to General Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic defendants' motions were taken under submission on the papers. (Doc. No. 203.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant defendants Sharp Manufacturing Company of America's (Doc. No. 196) and Sharp Appliances Thailand Limited's motions to dismiss (Doc. No. 198), in part.^[2]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In their FAC, plaintiffs allege as follows.^[3] Plaintiffs Erika Mendoza and James Hunt are California residents who suffered economic injury as a result of defective “over-the-range” (“OTR”) microwaves that were designed, manufactured, marked, distributed, and sold by defendants between 2011-2017. (Doc. No. 194 at ¶¶ 1, 11, 24, 42, 106; see also Doc. No. 213 at 24.) OTR microwaves are microwaves “exclusively designed and specifically intended for installation on a vertical wall directly above the cooking surface of the range.” (Doc. No. 194 at ¶ 2.) Despite being identified as OTR microwaves, plaintiffs allege that the microwaves at issue (the “Microwaves”) were not safe to be used over a cooktop. (Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.) According to plaintiffs, these Microwaves contain stainless steel handles that reach unsafe temperatures when the cooking surface below is in use. (Id. at ¶ 3.) This alleged defect “impairs the use of the Microwave's handle and exposes anyone who touches it to a substantial risk of permanent and/or serious injury.” (Id.)

In support of their contention that the Microwave handles reach unsafe temperatures, plaintiffs rely on the American Society of Testing Materials' Standard Guide for Heated System Surface Conditions that Produce Contact Burn Injuries (“ASTM Standard C1055-03”). (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) Under ASTM Standard C1055-03, which plaintiffs have attached to the FAC, skin contact with any metal which has a temperature in excess of 111 degrees Fahrenheit may cause injury, with the risk of injury and/or pain rising “exponentially with each degree increase” above 111 degrees Fahrenheit. (Id. at ¶ 5; Doc. No. 194-1 at 7.) Plaintiffs allege that the Microwaves exceed the ASTM Standard C1055-03 because their stainless-steel handles reach temperatures in excess of 131 degrees Fahrenheit when the cooktop below is operated. (Doc. No. 194 at ¶ 6.)

In December 2014, plaintiff Mendoza purchased an OTR microwave (a Frigidaire Professional Microwave Oven, Model No. FPMV189KFC, the “Mendoza Microwave”) from defendant Modesto Direct Appliance, Inc. (“Modesto”) in Modesto, California. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13.) Plaintiff Mendoza asserts that when making her purchase, she “relied on the representation that the [Mendoza] Microwave was an [OTR] Microwave,” which was represented on her receipt and sales documents. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17.)

In November 2016, plaintiff Hunt purchased an OTR microwave (a Frigidaire Gallery Over-The-Range Microwave Oven, Model No. FGMV175QFA, the “Hunt Microwave”) from defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe's”) in Bakersfield, California. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Plaintiff Hunt also asserts that he “relied on the representation that the [Hunt] Microwave was an [OTR] Microwave,” as identified by his receipt and sales documents, when making his purchase. (Id. at ¶ 29-30.) Both plaintiffs Mendoza and Hunt “would not have purchased or would have paid less for their Microwaves if the Handle Defect had been disclosed revealing the Microwaves were not suitable for installation as [OTR] Microwaves as represented.” (Id. at ¶ 120.)

Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina. (Id. at ¶ 38.) Electrolux distributes products, including microwaves, under a variety of brand names, including Electrolux, Electrolux ICON, Frigidaire Professional, Frigidaire Gallery, Frigidaire, Eureka, Kelvinator, Sanitaire, Tappan, and White-Westinghouse. (Id. at ¶ 39.) Plaintiffs allege that Electrolux distributed and sold the Microwaves throughout the United States and continued to sell the Microwaves even after learning of the handle defect. (Id. at ¶¶ 40, 139.)

Defendant Midea Microwave and Electrical Appliances Manufacturing Company, Limited (“Midea China”) is a manufacturing company incorporated and with its principal place of business in China. (Id. at ¶¶ 57-58.) According to plaintiffs, Midea China manufactured several of the Microwaves and supplied them to Electrolux.^[4] (Id. at ¶¶ 42-43.) In March 2010, prior to shipping the Microwaves to the United States, Midea China performed product testing on the Microwaves, which recorded that the Microwaves' handle surface temperatures reached 137.48 degrees Fahrenheit-well in excess of the ASTM Standard C1055-03-when “using a mere thirty percent of a burner's power from the cooktop below.” (Id. at ¶ 43.) Midea China submitted these findings to Underwriter Laboratories, LLC (“UL”) as part of the process to certify the Microwaves for sale in the United States. (Id. at ¶ 48.) Plaintiffs aver that defendant Midea China had “actual and/or constructive knowledge” of the handle testing as a result of this product testing, which was performed prior to the sale of the Microwaves in the United States. (Id. at ¶¶ 62-64.) Midea China allegedly manufactured the Hunt Microwave. (Id. at ¶ 61.)

Defendant Midea America Corp. (“Midea America”) is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. (Id. at ¶ 55.) Midea America is the North American headquarters of Midea, a manufacturer that “markets and distributes” various home appliances. (Id.) In April 2017, Midea America opened a research and development facility in Louisville, Kentucky that, inter alia, tests certain Midea equipment sold in the United States. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that, due to communications between Electrolux, Midea China, and Midea America, Midea America had knowledge of the handle defect at least as of January 2016. (Id. at ¶ 56.) However, plaintiffs do not allege whether Midea America itself conducted any tests of the Microwaves at issue in this action.

Defendant Sharp Appliances Thailand Limited (“SATL”) is a Thailand-based manufacturer and supplier of microwaves that contracted with Electrolux to manufacture some of the Microwaves for distribution in the United States. (Id. at ¶ 74-75.) Plaintiffs allege that defendant SATL had “actual and/or constructive knowledge of” the handle defect as of at least May 2011 due to product testing. (Id. at ¶ 140.) Defendant SATL also allegedly manufactured the Mendoza Microwave. (Id. at ¶¶ 80.)

Defendant Sharp Manufacturing Company of America (“SMCA”) is a division of Sharp Electronics Corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Sharp Electronics Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. (Id.) According to plaintiffs, defendant SMCA performs product testing on certain microwaves that are sold in the United States, including Microwaves manufactured by defendant SATL. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Plaintiffs assert that defendant SMCA has “had actual and/or constructive knowledge” of the handle defect since at least May 2011 due to its own laboratory testing. (Id. at ¶ 72.)

Defendant Lowe's is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in North Carolina, and defendant Modesto is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. (Id. at ¶ 82-84.) As retailers, defendants Lowe's and Modesto allegedly sold the Microwaves to plaintiffs and restated the representation that the Microwaves were suitable for OTR use. (Id. at ¶¶ 121-123.)

Plaintiffs further allege that defendants

continue to sell the Microwaves omitting disclosure of the Handle Defect; have not modified the Microwaves or the Stainless Steel Handles to eliminate the Handle Defect; have not provided any warning of the Handle Defect; have not offered to replace all of the defective Microwaves or Stainless Steel Handles; have not replaced or repaired the workmanship, parts, and/or material that cause the Handle Defect; and have not refunded all or part of the monies paid by [consumers] for their Microwaves and/or Stainless Steel Handles, including the cost to install the Microwaves.

(Id. at ¶ 155.)

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs Erika Mendoza and James Hunt filed a complaint initiating this putative class action lawsuit against defendant Electrolux in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, alleging violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”). (Doc. No. 1-1 at 2-3, 17-22.) On June 22, 2017, defendant Electrolux removed this action to this federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), on the grounds that diversity jurisdiction exists under the Class Action Fairness Act because the putative class contained at least 100 class members, minimal diversity of citizenship was met, and the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) The next day, on June 23, 2017, defendant Electrolux filed a motion to transfer this action...