Waters v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., Civil Action No. 5:13CV151
| Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 5:13CV151 |
| Citation | 154 F.Supp.3d 340 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | Gloria Waters and William Hall, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant. |
Amy E. Keller, Edward Wallace, Michael H. Bowman, Wexler Wallace LLP, Chicago, IL R. Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Vestavia Hills, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso, PLLC, Wheeling, WV, for Defendant.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
This case is about a washing machine and the products liability suit it inspired. After years of use, the plaintiffs allege that they found their washer had developed a “biofilm” that ruined their clothing and emitted noxious fumes. They filed this class action against the manufacturer, Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”), for various products liability claims under Ohio and West Virginia law. Electrolux filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and a motion to strike a portion of the class definition. For the following reasons, Electrolux's motion to strike is denied as premature, its motion to dismiss is granted, and the plaintiffs are permitted to file a second amended complaint solely regarding their negligent design and failure to warn claims.
The plaintiffs live in Weirton, West Virginia. They purchased an Electrolux “high efficiency” washing machine at a Sears Department Store in Steubenville, Ohio in 2009. After years of use, the plaintiffs noticed a noxious odor coming from their washing machine. They contacted Electrolux in July 2013 and were told that they should leave the door of the machine open and run regular cycles with a product called “Affresh®.” The plaintiffs tried these suggestions but saw no positive results.
Upon further investigation, the plaintiffs discovered that their washer had developed a coat of “biofilm,” consisting of bacteria and mold, in the washer drum. This biofilm caused the odor and was transferred to clothing and other articles washed in the machine. The plaintiffs allege that Electrolux knew its washers allowed biofilm to develop, but continued to market them with a special “Deep Clean Sanitize” cycle that it claimed would kill “99.9% of bacteria with no carryover of bacteria between loads.” ECF No. 46 at 19.
The plaintiffs filed this class action in West Virginia state court alleging consumer fraud, breach of warranties, and unjust enrichment on behalf of all persons in West Virginia who own a washing machine manufactured by Electrolux. The defendants removed the case to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1453
, 1711 –1715. Electrolux then moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand and alternatively for leave to amend the complaint. This Court denied the motion to remand and granted leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint defining a new class of persons in Ohio who purchased or own a washer manufactured by Electrolux.
The amended complaint alleges violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (“WVCCPA”), W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6-101
to 46A-6-110, violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”), Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1345.01 -1345.13, breach of express warranties, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, tortious breach of warranties, negligent design and failure to warn, and unjust enrichment. Electrolux then renewed its motion to dismiss and moved to strike the Ohio Class.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)
, a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor 'because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.”' Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore , 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir.2001).
Electrolux asks this Court to strike from the amended complaint the Ohio class definition, arguing that the plaintiffs do not represent the Ohio class because they are West Virginia residents. The plaintiffs define the following two classes in their amended complaint:
ECF No. 38 at 6. Despite Electrolux's characterization of these definitions, they are ambiguous regarding class-members' residency. Moreover, Electrolux's problem with these definitions comes down to whether the named plaintiffs are representative of each class; a question to be decided on a motion to certify the classes. Therefore, this Court finds that Electrolux's motion to strike the Ohio class is premature.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”' Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). This plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to articulate facts that, when accepted as true, demonstrate that the plaintiff has stated a claim that makes it plausible he is entitled to relief. Francis v. Giacomelli , 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir.2009) (citing Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). To determine whether the plaintiffs have satisfied this pleading standard, this Court must first determine which law applies to the named plaintiffs' claims.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2)
, a plaintiff may amend the complaint with the court's leave, and a “court should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has broad discretion concerning amendments to pleadings, but leave should be granted unless “the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the [] party, or the amendment would have been futile.” Laber v. Harvey , 438 F.3d 404, 426–27 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
While exercising diversity jurisdiction, this Court must apply West Virginia's choice of law principles. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. , 313 U.S. 487, 496–97, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)
. In doing so, this Court must first characterize the plaintiffs' claims.
The plaintiffs' claims for breach of express and implied warranties and for unjust enrichment clearly sound in contract, as they are based on an alleged contractual, or quasi-contractual, relationship between the parties. The claims for negligent design and failure to warn and for tortious breach of warranty clearly sound in tort, as they seek compensation for allegedly wrongful conduct. The plaintiffs' claims for violations of Ohio and West Virginia's consumer fraud statutes are not as easy to define.
Both the Ohio and West Virginia statutes create private causes of action for consumers against sellers of goods who violate the statutes' prohibitions against unfair or deceptive trade practices. Ohio Rev. Stat. § 1345.09; W. Va. Code § 46A-6-106
. A cause of action under each statute requires a plaintiff to show he or she relied on the unfair or deceptive practice in entering into the transaction, and that the practice proximately caused the plaintiff's damages. See Temple v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc. , 133 Fed.Appx. 254, 265 (6th Cir.2005)
(); W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6-106(a), (b). Both statutes allow plaintiffs to recover actual damages; economic and non-economic. Ohio Rev. Stat. § 1345.09(A); W. Va. Code § 46A-6-106(a). While the OCSPA allows an individual plaintiff to rescind the transaction or recover actual damages, rescission is not permitted in a class action. Ohio Rev. Stat. § 1345.09(A), (B). Moreover, the OCSPA is “a remedial law which is designed to compensate for traditional consumer remedies.” Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co. , 48 Ohio St.3d 27, 548 N.E.2d 933, 935 (1990). Although aspects of each statutory claim involve contractual issues, these statutes are intended to compensate consumers for damages caused by sellers' unfair or deceptive practices. Therefore, these claims sound in tort.
Because the plaintiffs' claims arise out of a purported contract for the sale of goods, the choice of law provisions in the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by West Virginia apply. West Virginia Code § 46-1-301
provides that where the parties did not agree on what law should apply to their contract, West Virginia law applies so long as the contract “bears an appropriate relation to [West Virginia].” W. Va. Code § 46-1-301(b). Although West Virginia courts have not yet applied § 46-1-301 in that regard, those courts likely would apply West Virginia's common law choice of laws analysis to determine whether the contract “bears an appropriate relation” to West Virginia. See In re Digitek Prods. Liab. Litig. , MDL No. 2:08-md-01968, 2010 WL 2102330, *12 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carder v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc.
...the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ...." Dkt. Nos. [60] ¶ 772; [70] at 62. Relying on Waters v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 340 (N.D. W. Va. 2015), Defendant maintains that this letter was insufficient because it was sent after the initial complaint was f......
-
Knight v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc.
...the involved product is defective in the sense that it is not reasonably safe for its intended use.’ " Waters v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc. , 154 F.Supp.3d 340, 351–52 (N.D.W. Va. 2015) (quoting Ilosky , 307 S.E.2d at 609 ). The touchstone for reasonable safeness is what standards a reaso......
- Weirton Area Water Bd. v. 3M Co.
-
Weidman v. Ford Motor Co.
...2015 WL 6465639, at *11 (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 2015); Raymond v. Rahme, 78 S.W.3d 552, 563 (Tex. App. 2002); Waters v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc., 154 F. Supp.3d 340, 350 (N.D. W.Va. 2015). Plaintiffs respond by arguing that the warranty fails of its essential purpose. While this argument has al......