O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc., 08-2278.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Citation574 F.3d 501
Docket NumberNo. 08-2278.,08-2278.
PartiesJohn O'NEIL; Jill O'Neil, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. SIMPLICITY, INC.; Graco Children's Products, Inc., Appellees.
Decision Date22 July 2009
574 F.3d 501
John O'NEIL; Jill O'Neil, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants,
v.
SIMPLICITY, INC.; Graco Children's Products, Inc., Appellees.
No. 08-2278.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2009.
Filed: July 22, 2009.

[574 F.3d 502]

Elizabeth C. Pritzker, argued, San Francisco, CA, Eric H. Gibbs, Geoffrey A. Munroe, Amy Eskin and Charles C. Kelly III, San Francisco, CA, Vincent J. Esades, Dylan J. McFarland and Renae D. Steiner, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief, for appellant.

Joseph J. Krasovec, III, argued, Chicago, IL, Heide Dalenberg, Holly A. Podulka, Chicago, IL and John E. Connelly, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief, for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.


John and Jill O'Neil appeal from the district court's1 dismissal with prejudice of their claims against Simplicity, Inc.,2 and Graco Children's Products, Inc. We affirm.

I.

The O'Neils purchased an Aspen 3-in-1 crib, manufactured by Simplicity and branded with Graco's name, for use by their grandchildren during family visits to their home. One side of the crib was designed to sit at a lower height, if desired, making it easier to place a child into and remove it from the crib. This dropside was a key component for Jill O'Neil because she is unable to lift her grandchildren over the side of the crib when it is at full height. The O'Neils used their crib without incident for approximately four years.

On September 21, 2007, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) and Simplicity announced a voluntary recall of about one million cribs, including the Aspen 3-in-1. The recall was prompted by a hardware defect that made it possible for the drop-side to detach from the crib, creating a dangerous gap in which a child could get caught. The CSPC cautioned consumers, "[w]e do not want your child in that crib tonight." This defect has resulted in three infant deaths, seven non-fatal injuries, and fifty-six other reported incidents.

Simplicity and Graco refused to refund the price of the crib or repair the hardware defect, but offered to mail a retrofit repair kit at the consumer's request. Once installed by the consumer, the kit would permanently affix the drop-side to the crib frame at the full height position, thereby disabling the functionality of the drop-side. The O'Neils have stopped using the crib since the recall and have neither requested nor installed a retrofit repair kit.

574 F.3d 503

On September 24, 2007, Amber Spitzer, a resident of Illinois, filed a class action complaint against Simplicity, Graco, and Target in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In November 2007, Spitzer withdrew the complaint and filed a first amended complaint. Simplicity and Target filed a motion to dismiss, after which Spitzer withdrew her pleading and voluntarily dismissed Target without prejudice.3 On January 30, 2008, the district court granted Spitzer's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. This pleading replaced Spitzer with the O'Neils as named plaintiffs.

The O'Neils assert eight claims in the second amended complaint. Against Simplicity, they seek a declaratory judgment that Simplicity is required to repair or replace the crib under the limited warranty. They also assert a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and breach of express warranty. Against both Simplicity and Graco, the O'Neils allege breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and claims under three Minnesota consumer protection statutes. The O'Neils purport to represent a class of "all persons in Minnesota who purchased" a recalled Simplicity/Graco crib, excluding any individual who suffered a personal injury as a result of the allegedly defective crib.

The district court granted Simplicity's and Graco's motions to dismiss, concluding that the O'Neils failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and denied them leave to file yet another amended complaint.

II.

We review de novo the district court's dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Briehl v. General Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir.1999). We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true, but the allegations must supply sufficient "facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

"It is well established that purchasers of an allegedly defective product have no legally recognizable claim where the alleged defect has not manifested itself in the product they own." Briehl, 172 F.3d at 628 (quoting Weaver v. Chrysler Corp. 172 F.R.D. 96, 99 (S.D.N.Y.1997)) (internal quotations omitted). The O'Neils allege that defendants' cribs are defective because the drop-side can separate from the crib frame. They do not allege, however, that such a separation has ever occurred in their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
130 cases
  • Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 31 Marzo 2020
    ...the alleged defect"—that is, that the defect is not latent, but has manifested itself in the product. O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc. , 574 F.3d 501, 503 (8th Cir. 2009). "It is well established that purchasers of an allegedly defective product have no legal recognizable claim where the alleged ......
  • Barkley v. Woodbury Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • 23 Mayo 2012
    ...under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)” and “accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true.” O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc., 574 F.3d 501, 503 (8th Cir.2009). In addressing a motion to dismiss, “[t]he court may consider the pleadings themselves, materials embraced by the plead......
  • In re Gen. Motors LLC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 12 Septiembre 2018
    ...may recover for a difference in value between what was purchased and what was received.New GM relies on O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc. , 574 F.3d 501, 504 (8th Cir. 2009), in which the Eighth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they had not received the benefit of the bargain where t......
  • Thunander v. Uponor, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 14 Agosto 2012
    ...defective product have no legally recognizable claim where the alleged defect has not manifested itself in the product they own.” 574 F.3d 501, 503 (8th Cir.2009) (citing Briehl, 172 F.3d at 627). In O'Neil, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants' baby cribs were defective in that the drop ......
  • 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