In re: Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation

Memorandum In Support of 21 Partial Motion to dismiss plaintiff's Master Class Action Complaint

N.D. OhioMarch 13, 2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION In re: WHIRLPOOL CORP. FRONT- LOADING WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 1 :08-wp-65000 MDLNo.2001 Class action Judge: James S. Gwin MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S MASTER CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 1 of 56 Table of Contents Page Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................... IV STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 3 A. Plaintiffs' Alleged Experiences with Their Duet Washers ....................... . 4 B. Whirlpool's Alleged Misrepresentations and Material Omissions ........... . 4 C. Plaintiffs' Duet Washers' Warranty Provisions ........................................ . 5 ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................... 6 I. II. III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................... . THE ALLISON AND SCHAEFFER PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT PARTIES TO ANY OF THE UNDERLYING ACTIONS AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED FROM THE MASTER COMPLAINT ................................................................ .. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD COGNIZABLE CLAIMS UNDER ANY OF THE RELEVANT CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES ........................... . A. B. Plaintiff Strong Fails to State a Claim Under the Arizona Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.. .......................................... . 1. 2. Plaintiff Strong fails to plead with particularity any false or misleading statement by Whirlpool .............................................. . Plaintiff Strong's allegation that Whirlpool did not disclose the alleged defect in her Duet washer is not sufficiently particular to state an Arizona Fraud Act claim ............................................ .. Plaintiffs Fail to Plead with Particularity Their Claims Under the Consumer Fraud Statutes of California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas .......................................... . C. Plaintiffs Glazer and Chris and Trina Allison Fail to State a Claim for 6 7 8 8 9 II 14 Violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act ................................... 15 1. Plaintiffs' OCSPA class claim fails because they did not plead facts showing that Whirlpool's conduct previously had been determined to be deceptive or unconscionable ............................. . 15 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 2 of 56 IV. V. 2. Plaintiffs Glazer and Chris and Trina Allison fail to plead any conduct by Whirlpool that would constitute an unfair ar deceptive act. ................................................................................. . D. Plaintiffs Glennon and Cohen Fail to State a Claim Under the New 17 Yark General Business Law ...................................................................... 19 E. Plaintiff Schaeffer Fails to State a Claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ....................................................................................... 20 1. Plaintiff Schaeffer Fails to Allege Any Predicate Statutory Violation Sufficient to State a UCL Claim for "Unlawful" Business Practices .......................................................................... 20 2. Plaintiff Schaeffer Fails to Allege an "Unfair" Business Practice .......................................................................................... . 22 3. Plaintiff Schaeffer Fails to State a Claim for "Fraudulent" Business Practices .......................................................................... 23 PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE ACTIONABLE CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF WRITTEN OR IMPLIED WARRANTy ...................................................... .. A. B. c. D. E. Under Ohio's Choice-of-Law Rules, the Laws of Plaintiffs' Respective Home States Apply to Their Warranty Claims ...................... . Plaintiffs Do Not Allege Privity with Whirlpool, as Required to State an Implied-Warranty Claim in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Yark, North Carolina, and Ohio ...................................................... .. Plaintiffs Hollander, Bicknell, Schaeffer, Nordan, and Strong Fail to State an Express-Warranty Claim Because They Have Not Alleged Privity ........................................................................................................ . Plaintiffs Wernlan, Glazer, Hollander, Beierschmitt, and Gardner's Express-Warranty Claims Fail Because They Have Not Alleged a Violation of Any Specific Warranty Provision ........................................ .. Plaintiff Schaeffer's Song-Beverly Act/Breach ofImplied-Warranty Claim Fails Because It Arose After the Implied Warranty Expired .......... PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE CLAIMS FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT.. ...... 11 24 24 28 32 32 35 36 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 3 of 56 VI. PLAINTIFFS GLAZER AND CHRIS AND TRINA ALLISON'S CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENT DESIGN AND FAILURE TO WARN ARE BARRED BECAUSE THEY SEEK TO RECOVER ONLY ECONOMIC LOSSES ........... 39 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 40 11l Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 4 of 56 Table of Authorities Abraham v. Volkswagen of AII1., Inc., 795 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986) .............................................................................................. . 35 All W. Elecs., Inc. v. M-B-W, Inc., 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) ........................................................................ . 25n,32n Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Super. Ct., 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 526 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) ........................................................................ . 28n Anunziato v. eMachines, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (C.D. Cal. 2005) ............................................................................ . 28 Arikat v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 430 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ............................................................................ . 21 Ass 'n for Betterment of Black News Employees v. Evening News Ass 'n, No. 4-70680,1975 WL 268 CE.D. Mich. Oct. I, 1975) .................................................... . 8n Assoc. Commercial Corp. v. Wallia, 511 A.2d 709 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986) ................................................................ . 37n Atkinson v. Elk Corp. of Tex. , 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ........................................................................ . 35-36 Austin Hatcher Realty, inc. v. Arnold, No. COA07-1377, 2008 WL 2246675 (N.c. Ct. App. June 3, 2008) .............................. . 37n AvelY Dennison Corp. v. Soliant LLC, No. I :04CVI865, 2005 WL 2035511 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 23,2005) .................................. . 39 Bank of AII1. Corp. v. Gibbons, 918 A.2d 565 (Md. Ct. App. 2007) ................................................................................... . 37n Bardin v. DaimlerchlJ1sler, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ........................................................................ . 23,24 Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1991) .............................................................................................. . 37n Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) ...................................................................................................... . 6,19,22 IV Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 5 of 56 Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) ........................................................................ . Beshears v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. CV-07-00292, 2007 WL 1438738 (D. Ariz. May 15,2007) .................................... .. Bellua v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 08 C 1832,2009 WL 230573 (N.D. 111. Jan. 30, 2009) ............................................ .. Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................ . Bower v. I.B.M., 495 F. Supp. 2d 837 (S.D. Ohio 2007) ............................................................................ .. Cannon v. Metro Ford, Inc., 242 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ............................................................................ .. Carlson v. Gel1. Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................... .. Cel-Tech Commc 'ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527 (Cal. 1999) ....................................................................................................... . Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mji-s. Mut. Ins. Co., 537 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1989) ............................................................................................ .. Cincinnati Gas & Elee. Co. v. Gel1. Elec. Co., 656 F. Supp. 49 (S.D. Ohio 1986) ................................................................................... .. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) ......................................................................................................... .. Clemens v. DaimlerChlysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... .. Cole v. Mileti, 133 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................... .. Continental Cas. Co. v. Honeywell Int 'I, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-1410, 2009 WL 313127 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 6,2009) .................................... .. Cooper v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 07-3853 (JLL), 2008 WL 4513924 (D.NJ. Sept. 30,2008) ..................................... .. v 21 8,9,11 2,11,13, 38 6 16 14n 27n 20 39-40 40 33 27n,30, 34 24,26n 33 35 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 6 of 56 Copiers Typewriters Calculators, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 576 F. Supp. 312 (D. Md. 1983) ....................................................................................... . Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1141 (Ohio 2007) ........................................................................................... . Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ........................................................................ . Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, 558 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D.NJ. 2008) ................................................................................... . Ellis v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 06 C 4571, 2006 WL 3524409 (N.D. III. Dec. 5,2006) ............................................ . ExxonMobiIInter-Am., Inc. v. Advanced iJ?fo. Eng 'g Servs., Inc., 328 F. Supp. 2d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ............................................................................... . Farris v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 1:07 CN 2477, 2008 WL 1752142 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 14,2008) ................................ . Ferron v. Zoomego, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-751, 2007 WL 1974946 (S.D. Ohio July 3, 2007) ...................................... . Finch v. Ford Motor Co., 327 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. III. 2004) ................................................................................ . Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund v. Mull. Employees', Officers', & Officials' Annuity & Benefit Fund, 579 N.E.2d 1003 (III. App. Ct. 1991) ....................................... . First Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Maine Coast Marine Constr., Inc., No. 06-119-B-K, 2007 WL 2556237 (D. Me. Aug. 31,2007) ......................................... . FIO/y v. SilvercrestIndus., Inc., 633 P.2d 383 (Ariz. 1981 ) ................................................................................................. . Gordon v. Ford Motor Co., 657 N.Y.S.2d 43 (N.Y. App. Diy. 1997) .......................................................................... . GregO/y v. Atrium Door & Window Co., 415 S.E.2d 574 (N.c. Ct. App. 1992) ............................................................................... . Grismore v. Capitol One FS.B., No. CV 05-2460-PHX-SMM, 2007 WL 841513 (D. Ariz. Mar. 16,2007) ..................... . Hambleton v. R.G. Barry CO/p., 465 N.E.2d 1298 (Ohio 1984) ........................................................................................... . YI 26n,32n 25,28- 29,30 21-24 26 14n 19 26n 14n,18 29 37n 8 25n,32n 25n 25n 10 36 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 7 of 56 Hartless v. Clorox Co., No. 06CV2705 JAH(CAB), 2007 WL 3245260 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2007) ...................... . Heisner ex reI. Heisner v. Genzyme Corp., No. 08-C-593, 2008 WL 2940811 (N.D.l11. July 25, 2008) ........................................... .. Hoffer v. Cooper Wiring Devices, Inc., No. I :06CV763, 2007 WL 1725317 (N.D. Ohio June 13,2007) .................................... .. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. 2005) .............................................................................................. . In re ConAgra Peanut Buller Prods. Liab. Lilig., 251 F.R.D. 689 (N.D. Ga. 2008) ...................................................................................... .. In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Tools Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., Nos. 05 C 4742 & 05 C 2623, 2006 WL 3754823 (N.D. III. Dec. 18,2006) .................. .. In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., 245 F.R.D. 279 (N.D. Ohio 2007) .................................................................................... . Intergraph Corp. v. Stearman, 555 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) ...................................................................... . IWOI, LLCv. Monaco Coach Corp., 581 F. Supp. 2d 994 (N.D. III. 2008) ................................................................................ . Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 834 N.E.2d 791 (Ohio 2005) ............................................................................................. . Johnson v. Wheeler, 492 F. Supp. 2d 492 (D. Md. 2007) .................................................................................. . Kowalke v. Bernard Chevrolet, Inc., No. 99 C 7980, 2000 WL 656660 (N.D. III. Mar. 23, 2000) ............................................ . Kron Med. Corp. v. Collier Cobb & Assocs., Inc., 420 S.E.2d 192 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992) .............................................................................. .. Kuehn v. Stanley, 91 P.3d 346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004) .................................................................................... . Lantz v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 06 C 5932, 2007 WL 1424614 (N.D. III. May 14,2007) .......................................... . VB 30 33 15,16n, 17,38 25n 24 27 24 32n 31 38 14n 30n,31 14n 9 30-31 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 8 of 56 Lava Trading, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ............................................................................... . Lee v. Chrysler Corp., No. 2004CA00164, 2005 WL 449762 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2005) ............................. . LichojJv. CSXTransp., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 564 (N.D. Ohio 2003) .................................................................................... . Lyons v. Coxcom, Inc., No. 08-CV-02047-H (CAB), 2009 WL 347285 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2009) ........................ . Malkamaki v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 411 F. Supp. 2d 737 (N.D. Ohio 2005) ............................................................................. . Mancari's CllIyslerlJeep, Inc. v. Universal Auto Leasing, Inc., No. 04 C 6631,2005 WL 2284305 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2005) ................................................ . Marrone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 850 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 2006) ............................................................................................... . Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ . Munch v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Nos. 06 C 7023, 07 C 412, 2008 WL 4450307 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2008) ....................... . Naporano Iron & Metal Co. v. Am. Crane COIl)., 79 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D.N.J. 2000) ..................................................................................... . Nobility Homes a/Tex., Inc. v. Shivers, 557 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. 1977) ............................................................................................... . Ocana v. Ford Motor Co., 992 So. 2d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) ........................................................................ . Oestreicher v. Alienware Call)., 544 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................. . Ohayon v. Sa/eco Ins. Co., 747 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 2001) ............................................................................................. . Osborne v. Subaru a/Am., Inc., 243 Cal. Rptr. 815 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) ........................................................................... . VllI 19,20, 31 40 26 14n 35 2n IS 6 2,11,13, 14-15 14n 25n 31 24 26 30n,31 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 9 of 56 Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 647 N.E.2d 741 (N.Y. 1995).............................................................................................. 19 Owens Transp. Serv., Inc. v. lnt'/ Truck & Engine Corp., No. 1:05 CV 2897, 2006 WL 3545109 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 8,2006).................................... 35 Paikai v. Gel1. Motors Corp., No. Cry. S-07-892, 2009 WL 275761 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2009)....................................... 16 Parrish v. Nat '/ Football League Players Ass 'n, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................. 14n Patel v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 821 (N.D. Tex. 2001) .............................................................................. 14n Peterson v. Cellco P'ship, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)......................................................................... 37n Picker lnt 'I, Inc. v. Mayo Found., 6 F. Supp. 2d 685 (N.D. Ohio 1998).................................................................................. 39 Plagens v. Nat '/ RV Holdings, 328 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Ariz. 2004) ............................................................................... 29 Radford v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 168 F. Supp. 2d 751 (N.D. Ohio 2001).............................................................................. 18 Rentas v. DaimlerChlJlSler Corp., 936 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ......................................................................... 31 Rothe v. Maloney Cadillac, Inc., 518 N.E.2d 1028 (Ill. 1988)............................................................................................... 25n Sanders v. City of Fresno, No. crv F 05-0469 A WI SMS, 2006 WL 1883394 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2006)................... 28 Sanderson v. HCA-The Healthcare Co., 447 F.3d 873 (6th CiT. 2006).................................................................................................. 10 Schwartz v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539 F.3d 135 (2d CiT. 2008)............................................................................................... 26n Shands Teaching Hasp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) ....................................................................... 37n Sichel v. Unum Provident Corp., 230 F. Supp. 2d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)................................................................................ 19 IX Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 10 of 56 Simmons v. Stlyker Corp., No. 08-3451 (JAP), 2008 WL 4936982 (D.N.J. Nov. 17,2008)....................................... 33n Spring Motors Distribs., inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 489 A.2d 660 (N.J. 1985)................................................................................................... 25n St. Clair v. Kroger Co., 581 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ohio 2008).............................................................................. 16 Tex. Carpenters Health Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, inc., 21 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 1998)................................................................................. 37n Trllstmark ins. Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, 48 PJd 485 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)..................................................................................... 36n T. WM. v. Am. Med. Sys., inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995)..................................................................................... 25n Ultimax, inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:06-cv-951, 2008 WL 974036 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8,2008) .......................................... 30n Vantassell-Malin v. Nelson, 741 F. Supp. 698 (N.D. Ill. 1990)............................................... ....................................... 26n Varney v. Ford Motor Co., No. 8:06-cv-295-T-24TGW, 2007 WL 2780566 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15,2007) ................... 30 Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., inc., 353 F.3d 516 (7th CiT. 2003) ............................................................................................. 29 Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986)......................................................................................... 27 Weaver v. CllIysler CO/p., 172 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ......................................................................................... 19,20 Weiner v. Klais & Co., 108 F.3d 86 (6th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................... 6 Whitman Realty Group, inc. v. Galano, 838 N.Y.S.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) ......................................................................... 37n Williamson v. Allstate ins. Co., 204 F.R.D. 641 (D. Ariz. 2001) ......................................................................................... 12 Statutes and Regulations 28U.S.C.§1407................................................................................................................ 7 x Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 11 of 56 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ................................................................................................................ . Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 ................................................................................................................ . Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .............................................................................................................. . Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1521 el. seq . .................................................................................. . Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ....................................................................................... . Cal. Civ. Code § 1668 ....................................................................................................... . Cal. Civ. Code § 1709 ....................................................................................................... . Cal. Civ. Code § 1710 ....................................................................................................... . Cal. Civ. Code § 1790.3 .................................................................................................... . Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1 .................................................................................................... . Cal. Comm. Code § 2313 .................................................................................................. . Cal. Comm. Code § 2314 .................................................................................................. . Cal. Comm. Code § 2315 .................................................................................................. . Md. Code, Com. Law § 2-314 .......................................................................................... . N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 ................................................................................................ . Ohio Admin. Code § 109.4-3-1 0 ...................................................................................... . Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.01 ................................................................................................ . Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02 ....................................................................................... . Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09 ....................................................................................... . Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.71 ................................................................................................ . Other Authorities 19 passim 19 8 20 22 21 21n 28n 35,36 21,22, 28n 28n 28n 26n 19 17 15 17,18 15,16n, 17 39n 7 Charles Allen Wright et aI., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1688 (2008) .................... 8n Xl Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 12 of 56 Plaintiffs Gina Glazer, Chris and Trina Allison, Pran1ila Gardner, Jeff Glennon, Mara Cohen, Karen Hollander, Rebecca Nordan, Maggie O'Brien, Tracie Snyder, Andrea Strong, Jane Werman, Sonja Sandholm-Pound, Shannon Schaeffer, Bonnie Beierschmitt, Phil Torf, and Sylvia Bicknell ("Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint ("Complaint") against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool") purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Duet®, Duet HT®, and Duet Sport® high efficiency front-loading washing machines (collectively, "Duet washers" or "Duets") who reside in Plaintiffs' respective home states. (Compl. ~'11-2.) Plaintiffs allege that Duet washers contain "serious design defects" that cause them to accumulate mold and mildew and associated odors. (lei. '12.) Plaintiffs further allege that Whirlpool made "false and misleading statements" about the Duet washers, "concealed material facts regarding" the alleged defects, and failed to "warn" consumers about the alleged defects. (lei. 'I~ 35, 38, 42.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of all but one of Plaintiffs' respective home states' consumer protection statutes, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of written and implied warranties, violation of the Song-Beverly Act, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of warranty, and negligent design and failure to warn.] The Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' statutory fraud claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) ("Rule 9(b )") for failing to plead those claims with particularity. Specifically, Plaintiffs fail to plead with particularity Whirlpool's allegedly false or misleading ] Plaintiffs claim that Whirlpool is obligated to repair, replace, or recall every Duet washer because of the alleged non-safety defect, regardless of whether the washers manifest the defect during the warranty period; indeed, regardless of whether they ever manifest the alleged defect. (Compl. ~~ 51h, 163, 164, 192, 193.) If Plaintiffs' theory were true, every manufacturer ofa consumer product would be obligated to preemptively service or recall every unit sold whenever some percentage-no matter how small-required service. That is not the law. Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 13 of 56 statements concerning the washers, and Plaintiffs include only vague and conclusory allegations concerning the existence and nature of the alleged design defects.2 Judge Lefkow's recent orders dismissing nearly identical consumer fraud act claims in three putative class actions pending against Sears, Roebuck and Company ("Sears actions") are directly on point. As here, the plaintiffs in the Sears actions allege that Whirlpool-manufactured front-loading washing machines contain design defects that cause the machines to accumulate mold and associated odors. Judge Lefkow dismissed claims brought pursuant to the consumer protection statutes of 16 states because the plaintiffs in the Sears actions, like Plaintiffs in this case, failed to plead any specific statement or representation that was allegedly false or misleading, and failed to provide an adequate description of the alleged defect that Sears allegedly failed to disclose. See Munch v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Nos. 06 C 7023, 07 C 412, 2008 WL 4450307, at *6, *8 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2008) (dismissing with prejudice claims brought pursuant to the consumer fraud statutes of Illinois, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and Indiana); Bettua v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 08 C 1832,2009 WL 230573, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30,2009) (dismissing claims brought pursuant to the consumer fraud statutes of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma.). Because the allegations in this case are nearly identical to the allegations in the 2 Plaintiffs' Complaint illustrates the need to impose heightened pleading standards in a consumer fraud case such as this one. That is because every line of mass-produced product of any complexity will have some percentage of units that require maintenance or repair during the life of the product. Absent a requirement that plaintiffs plead with particularity that such maintenance or repair was caused by the defendant's having fraudulently sold a defective product, virtually every product launch could be followed by baseless, expensive, and extortionate class litigation. See, e.g., Mancari's CllIysler/Jeep, Inc. v. Universal Aulo Leasing, Inc., No. 04 C 6631, 2005 WL 2284305, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15,2005) ("The purpose of Rule 9(b) in regards to fraud claims, 'is to minimize the extortionate impact that a baseless claim of fraud can have .... m (citations omitted)). 2 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 14 of 56 Sears actions, this Court should likewise dismiss Plaintiffs' consumer fraud act claims for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b). The Court also should dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, breach of warranty, negligent design, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of written and implied warranties fail because the allegations in the Complaint establish that certain Plaintiffs lack the required privity necessary to state a warranty claim under applicable law. Certain Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty fail because the Complaint does not plead any representation of fact by Whirlpool that could be construed as creating an express warranty, nor does it plead facts showing that Whirlpool breached the terms of its limited warranties. Plaintiff Schaeffer's implied-warranty claim fails because her claim arose after the statutory term of her implied warranty expired under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims fail because they have not adequately alleged that Whirlpool's conduct was wrongful in any way, and because certain Plaintiffs admit that they did not enter into any transaction with Whirlpool. Finally, Plaintiffs' claims for negligent design is barred because claims for purely economic losses cannot be recovered in tort. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs allege that their Duet washers are defective because they "(a) accumulate mold and mildew and/or residue or growth within the Washing Machines, (b) produce a moldy or mildewy odor that pemleates the Washing Machines and/or consumers' homes, (c) produce a mold or mildew odor on clothes and other items washed in the Machines, (d) fail to clean the Machines and remove moisture, residue, growth and/or bacteria that lead to the formation of mold, mildew, and associated found odors; and (e) [are] unusable in the marmer, to the extent to, and for the purpose for which the Washing Machines were advertised, marketed and sold." (Compl. ~ 2.) Plaintiffs allege that the purported design defects create "an excessive propensity" 3 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 15 of 56 for Duet washers to accumulate mold and mildew (id. ~ 36), and allege further that "virtually every machine" will eventually develop such problems (id. ~ 31). Plaintiffs further contend that Whirlpool "concealed material facts regarding" these alleged problems with the Duet washers, failed to "warn" consumers about these alleged problems, and "failed to implement a recall to adequately announce, remedy, and correct the defects." (Jd. ~~ 35,38, 5Ih.) A. Plaintiffs' Alleged Experiences with Their Duet Washers Plaintiffs allege that they bought their Duet washers between May 2003 and August 2006, and that their Duets subsequently developed problems with mold or mildew. (Compl. 'I~ 55-96.) 3 Plaintiffs do not allege that, before they bought their Duet washers, they personally saw, heard, read, or received from Whirlpool any representation or statement regarding the Duet washer's reliability, durability, or lack of need for repair within any particular period of time. (See id. ~'11-311.) Plaintiffs allege that tlley have suffered economic damages because Whirlpool's alleged conduct "[c]aused Plaintiffs and Class members to pay premium prices for a defective product," "[r]educed the value of the Washing Machines," and "[c]aused reasonable consumers like Plaintiffs and Class members to spend money for attempted repairs and other purported remedies of the defects." (Compl. ~ 52.) B. Whirlpool's Alleged Misrepresentations and Material Omissions Plaintiffs allege that, "in conjunction with each sale" of a Duet washer, Whirlpool has "marketed, advertised and warranted" that the Duets "were free from defects, or at a minimum 3 In the interest of space, to the extent Plaintiffs' individual allegations concerning their purchase of and experience with their Duet washers (id. ~~ 55-96) are relevant to this Motion, those allegations will be discussed in the applicable argument sections below. 4 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 16 of 56 would not cause Mold Problems." (CompJ. ~ 29.) The 311 paragraphs of the Complaint, however, do not identify a single statement by Whirlpool-much less "the who, what, when, where, and how"-that was either false or misleading due to the omission of a material fact. (See id. ~~ 1-311.) Plaintiffs allege further that, contrary to these unspecified statements, Whirlpool "knew and was aware, or should have known and been aware, before marketing and selling the machines" (id. ~ 38), that "serious design defects" cause the Duets to accumulate mold and mildew and produce associated odors (id. ~ 2). Plaintiffs also allege that Whirlpool knew when it made its unidentified statements that the Duet washers were "substantially likely to experience Mold Problems." (ld. "38.) In addition to the alleged (but unspecified) affIrmative misrepresentations, Plaintiffs plead that Whirlpool "failed to warn consumers of the Design Defects inherent in the Washing Machines or the Mold Problems which would result from the alleged defects" (id. "38) and "[c]ontinued to represent expressly or by implication that the Washing Machines ... were dependable, cost effective, and providing outstanding cleaning and performance as washing machines when it knew that these statements were false" (id. ~ 51). C. Plaintiffs' Duet Washers' Warranty Provisions With respect to Whirlpool's written warranties, Plaintiffs allege in pertinent part that Whirlpool provides "an express one-year factory warranty" that "[ ±Jor one year from the date of purchase ... [Whirlpool] will pay for Factory Specified Parts and repair labor to correct defects in materials or workmanship" (id. ~ 27), as well as a '" limited lifetime warranty on the stainless steel drum' for most of the Whirlpool Duet and Duet HT Machines" (id. ~ 28). Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege that Whirlpool provided a lifetime warranty on the stainless steel drum for the Duet Sport® washers. (ld.) Plaintiffs also admit that only certain of the Duet® and Duet HT® models are covered by a lifetime limited warranty on the stainless steel drum. (ld.) In fact, 5 Case 1:08-wp-65000-JG Document 22 Filed 03/13/09 Page 17 of 56 Whirlpool did not offer the lifetime limited wananty on the stainless steel wash dnun for Duet