And, critically, under both California and New York law, the alleged “‘particular purpose’” must be different from “‘the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used’” because it contemplates a buyer’s “‘specific use . . . which is peculiar to the nature of his business.’” Smith v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc., 2014 WL 989742, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) (quoting Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 37 Cal. App. 4th 1291, 1295 n.2 (1995)); Mastrangelo 903 F. Supp. at 443 n.1 (same); see also N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-315 cmt. 2; Cal. Com. Code § 2315 cmt. 2.7 In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that the “particular purpose” at issue here is “deep whitening.” (FAC ¶ 61.

“Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under [§ 2316] an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.” Viggiano, 944 F. 10 Harris v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 13-edcv-2329-ABC (AGRx) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSTION TO CVS’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case 5:13-cv-02329-AB-AGR Document 17 Filed 02/14/14 Page 18 of 28 Page ID #:242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supp. 2d at 896 (citing Cal. Com. Code § 2315). “The implied warranty of fitness is breached if the seller's product is not in fact suitable for the use intended by the purchaser.”

The FAC alleges that an implied warranty of merchantability existed and the Products “did not conform to the promises and affirmations made” on the Products’ label. ¶ 112. Under California Commercial Code § 2314(1), "a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale." The California Supreme Court has explained that “[m]erchantability has several meanings, two of which are relevant to the instant case: the product must '[conform] to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label, and must be 'fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.’" Hauter, 14 Cal. 3d at 117 (citing Cal. Com. Code §§ 2315(2)(c), (f)). Defendants argue that the Products are fit for their ordinary purpose of homeopathic remedies, but this is an attempt to limit or exclude the implied warranty of an OTC product, to an implied warranty only covering OTC homeopathic products. “No warranty, express or implied, can be modified or disclaimed unless a seller clearly limits his liability.” Id. at 119

Ann. § 12A:2-315, cmt. 2; see also Cal. Com. Code § 2315, cmt. 2 (same); Mastrangelo v. Howmedica, 903 F. Supp. 439, 443 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (same).

Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq. ................................................................................................. 7 Cal. Com. Code § 2313 ............................................................................................................ 7 Cal. Com. Code § 2315 ............................................................................................................ 7 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................ 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ................................................................................................................. 7 Regulations 21 C.F.R. § 101.62 ................................................................................................................. 21 21 C.F.R. § 320.

Under California law, privity between parties is required for either claim of implied warranty. E.g., Evraets v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 4th 779, 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (noting that California Commercial Code section 2315 requires that a buyer rely on sellers’ skill or judgment in order to have a cognizable implied warranty claim and rejecting implied warranty claim against medical device manufcaturer); Blanco v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 158 Cal. App. 4th 1039, 1058 (2008) (rejecting implied warranty claim against medical device manufacture because of lack of privity with citation to Evraets); accord Clemens v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir.2008) (plaintiff asserting breach of implied warranty claims must stand in vertical contractual privity with the defendant). Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise.

Comm. Code § 2314 .................................................................................................. . Cal. Comm. Code § 2315 .................................................................................................. . Md. Code, Com. Law § 2-314 .......................................................................................... .