1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASE NO. C23-1447 MJP CASUALTY INSURANCE 11 COMPANY, as subrogee of Somchai ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S and Duangta Ritnoppakun, MOTION TO DISMISS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 15 AMERICA, INC., 16 Defendant.
17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 4.) 19 Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. No. 6), the Reply (Dkt. No. 8), and all 20 other relevant materials, the Court DENIES the Motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 This action arises out of an alleged washing machine defect that resulted in property 23 damage to Somchai and Duangta Ritnoppakun’s home. The Ritnoppakun’s owned a washing 24 machine manufactured by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”). (Compl. ¶ 6 (Dkt. 1 No. 1-1).) In February 2022, the washing machine leaked and caused property damage. (Id. at ¶¶ 2 6-8.) The Ritnoppakun’s maintained homeowners’ insurance for their residence with Plaintiff 3 Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”). (Id. at ¶ 5.) The Ritnoppakun’s 4 submitted a claim to Allstate, and Allstate indemnified them for a total of $400,742.02. (Id. at ¶
5 11.) Allstate then brought a products liability claim against Samsung, alleging the washing 6 machine was designed, manufactured, and/or sold by Samsung in a defective or unreasonably 7 dangerous condition. (Id. at ¶ 13.) 8 Samsung now brings this Motion to Dismiss arguing the washing machine has passed the 9 12-year useful life presumption under Washington law. (Mot. at 1.) And because Allstate failed 10 to plead any facts to overcome this presumption, the claim must be dismissed as time barred. 11 (Id.) Allstate, in response, argues the 12-year useful life presumption is an affirmative defense 12 that it is not obligated to plead around. (Response at 1.) 13 ANALYSIS 14 A. Legal Standard
15 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) may be based on 16 either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts under such a theory. 17 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 18 motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for 19 relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is 20 plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 21 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The court must 22 accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true and make all inferences in the light most 23 favorable to the non-moving party. In re Fitness Holdings, Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45
24 1 (9th Cir. 2013). But “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an 2 otherwise proper motion to dismiss.” Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th 3 Cir. 2007). 4 B. Judicial Notice
5 Review of a 12(b)(6) motion is normally limited to the complaint itself. Lee v. City of 6 L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). If the Court relies on materials outside the pleadings, it 7 must treat the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and give the non-moving party an 8 opportunity to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 9 (9th Cir. 2003). “A court may, however, consider certain materials – documents attached to the 10 complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint or matters of judicial notice – 11 without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” “A judicially 12 noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known 13 within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready 14 determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questions.” Fed. R.
15 Evid. 201(b). 16 Samsung asks the Court to consider documents outside the pleadings without converting 17 it into a motion for summary judgment. (Mot. at 3.) Samsung attached a declaration by Andrew 18 Lugo to its Motion to supports its contention that Samsung manufactured the washing machine at 19 issue in 2007. (Declaration of Andrew Lugo ¶¶ 3-4 (Dkt. No. 4-1).) Lugo is a products liability 20 manager at Samsung. (Lugo Decl. ¶ 2.) He asserts the date of manufacturing can be determined 21 from the washing machine’s serial number. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) After reviewing the serial number of 22 the washing machine at issue here, he determined the washing machine was manufactured in 23
24 1 September 2007. (Id.) Allstate does not dispute the manufacturing date. Because this is a fact that 2 is not subject to reasonable dispute, the Court takes judicial notice of the manufacturing date. 3 C. Samsung’s Affirmative Defense 4 Samsung argues the damage caused by the washing machine occurred after its presumed
5 ‘useful safe life,’ as provided under Washington Law, had expired. Therefore, the statute of 6 repose bars Allstate’s claims against Samsung. The Court finds Samsung’s argument 7 unconvincing. 8 Generally, a court will not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 9 12(b)(6) when a defendant merely pleads affirmative defenses. This is because a plaintiff does 10 not need to anticipate and plead around all potential defenses. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 11 635, 640 (1980) (finding no basis for “imposing on the plaintiff an obligation to anticipate [an 12 affirmative defense]” in his complaint). “[D]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of an 13 affirmative defense is proper only if the defendant shows some obvious bar to securing relief on 14 the face of the complaint.” ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir.
15 2014). “A complaint showing that the governing statute of limitations has run on the plaintiff’s 16 claim for relief is the most common situation in which the affirmative defense appears on the 17 face of the pleading and provides a basis for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Rivera v. 18 Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 902 (9th Cir. 2013) (simplified). But “[i]f, from the 19 allegations of the complaint as well as any judicially noticeable materials, an asserted defense 20 raises disputed issues of fact, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is improper.” ASARCO, 765 F.3d at 21 1004 (internal citation omitted). 22 Because Samsung fails to demonstrate the statute of repose unequivocally bars Allstate’s 23 claim, its Motion fails. Allstate brings its claim against Samsung under RCW 7.72, which is
24 1 Washington State law governing product liability actions. (See Compl.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASE NO. C23-1447 MJP CASUALTY INSURANCE 11 COMPANY, as subrogee of Somchai ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S and Duangta Ritnoppakun, MOTION TO DISMISS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 15 AMERICA, INC., 16 Defendant.
17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 4.) 19 Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. No. 6), the Reply (Dkt. No. 8), and all 20 other relevant materials, the Court DENIES the Motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 This action arises out of an alleged washing machine defect that resulted in property 23 damage to Somchai and Duangta Ritnoppakun’s home. The Ritnoppakun’s owned a washing 24 machine manufactured by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”). (Compl. ¶ 6 (Dkt. 1 No. 1-1).) In February 2022, the washing machine leaked and caused property damage. (Id. at ¶¶ 2 6-8.) The Ritnoppakun’s maintained homeowners’ insurance for their residence with Plaintiff 3 Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”). (Id. at ¶ 5.) The Ritnoppakun’s 4 submitted a claim to Allstate, and Allstate indemnified them for a total of $400,742.02. (Id. at ¶
5 11.) Allstate then brought a products liability claim against Samsung, alleging the washing 6 machine was designed, manufactured, and/or sold by Samsung in a defective or unreasonably 7 dangerous condition. (Id. at ¶ 13.) 8 Samsung now brings this Motion to Dismiss arguing the washing machine has passed the 9 12-year useful life presumption under Washington law. (Mot. at 1.) And because Allstate failed 10 to plead any facts to overcome this presumption, the claim must be dismissed as time barred. 11 (Id.) Allstate, in response, argues the 12-year useful life presumption is an affirmative defense 12 that it is not obligated to plead around. (Response at 1.) 13 ANALYSIS 14 A. Legal Standard
15 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) may be based on 16 either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts under such a theory. 17 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 18 motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for 19 relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is 20 plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 21 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The court must 22 accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true and make all inferences in the light most 23 favorable to the non-moving party. In re Fitness Holdings, Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144-45
24 1 (9th Cir. 2013). But “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an 2 otherwise proper motion to dismiss.” Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th 3 Cir. 2007). 4 B. Judicial Notice
5 Review of a 12(b)(6) motion is normally limited to the complaint itself. Lee v. City of 6 L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). If the Court relies on materials outside the pleadings, it 7 must treat the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment and give the non-moving party an 8 opportunity to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 9 (9th Cir. 2003). “A court may, however, consider certain materials – documents attached to the 10 complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint or matters of judicial notice – 11 without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” “A judicially 12 noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known 13 within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready 14 determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questions.” Fed. R.
15 Evid. 201(b). 16 Samsung asks the Court to consider documents outside the pleadings without converting 17 it into a motion for summary judgment. (Mot. at 3.) Samsung attached a declaration by Andrew 18 Lugo to its Motion to supports its contention that Samsung manufactured the washing machine at 19 issue in 2007. (Declaration of Andrew Lugo ¶¶ 3-4 (Dkt. No. 4-1).) Lugo is a products liability 20 manager at Samsung. (Lugo Decl. ¶ 2.) He asserts the date of manufacturing can be determined 21 from the washing machine’s serial number. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) After reviewing the serial number of 22 the washing machine at issue here, he determined the washing machine was manufactured in 23
24 1 September 2007. (Id.) Allstate does not dispute the manufacturing date. Because this is a fact that 2 is not subject to reasonable dispute, the Court takes judicial notice of the manufacturing date. 3 C. Samsung’s Affirmative Defense 4 Samsung argues the damage caused by the washing machine occurred after its presumed
5 ‘useful safe life,’ as provided under Washington Law, had expired. Therefore, the statute of 6 repose bars Allstate’s claims against Samsung. The Court finds Samsung’s argument 7 unconvincing. 8 Generally, a court will not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 9 12(b)(6) when a defendant merely pleads affirmative defenses. This is because a plaintiff does 10 not need to anticipate and plead around all potential defenses. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 11 635, 640 (1980) (finding no basis for “imposing on the plaintiff an obligation to anticipate [an 12 affirmative defense]” in his complaint). “[D]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of an 13 affirmative defense is proper only if the defendant shows some obvious bar to securing relief on 14 the face of the complaint.” ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir.
15 2014). “A complaint showing that the governing statute of limitations has run on the plaintiff’s 16 claim for relief is the most common situation in which the affirmative defense appears on the 17 face of the pleading and provides a basis for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Rivera v. 18 Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 902 (9th Cir. 2013) (simplified). But “[i]f, from the 19 allegations of the complaint as well as any judicially noticeable materials, an asserted defense 20 raises disputed issues of fact, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is improper.” ASARCO, 765 F.3d at 21 1004 (internal citation omitted). 22 Because Samsung fails to demonstrate the statute of repose unequivocally bars Allstate’s 23 claim, its Motion fails. Allstate brings its claim against Samsung under RCW 7.72, which is
24 1 Washington State law governing product liability actions. (See Compl. ¶ 13.) Samsung’s Motion 2 to Dismiss is predicated on a provision of RCW 7.72, which contains a statute of repose that 3 provides: “a product seller shall not be subject to liability for harm under this chapter if the 4 product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the
5 product’s ‘useful safe life’ had expired.” RCW 7.72.060(1). A product’s “useful safe life” begins 6 at the time of delivery of the product, and the product is presumed safe for twelve years after the 7 delivery. RCW 7.72.060(1)(2). If the damage caused occurs more than twelve years after the 8 time of delivery, a presumption arises that the damage was caused after the useful safe life of the 9 product. RCW 7.72.060(2). “This presumption may only be rebutted by a preponderance of the 10 evidence.” Id. Samsung argues that it manufactured the washing machine owned by the 11 Ritnoppakuns in 2007. (Motion at 2.) Because the leak occurred in 2022, more than twelve years 12 had lapsed between manufacturing date and the incident; therefore, the washing machine had 13 surpassed its presumed “useful safe life” and Samsung cannot be held liable. (Id. at 2-3.) 14 Samsung’s argument fails for three reasons. First, Samsung’s briefing focuses on an
15 irrelevant date. Samsung argues that Allstate has to plead “the manufacture date of the washer” 16 in order to make its claim facially plausible. But the date of manufacturing is irrelevant. The 17 statute states the presumptive safe life is triggered “at the time of delivery,” not the date of 18 manufacturing. As such, the 2007 date is immaterial. Because Samsung’s briefing focuses on the 19 date of manufacturing and fails to discuss the date of delivery, its argument fails. For this reason, 20 the Court DENIES Samsung’s Motion. 21 Second, Samsung misstates whose burden it is to demonstrate whether the damage 22 occurred within the “useful safe life” period. Most of Samsung’s reply brief is focused on 23 Allstate’s failure to adequately plead the damage from the washer occurred within the twelve
24 1 year presumptive safe period. But Samsung’s belief that Allstate has the burden is incorrect. 2 RCW 7.72.060 clearly states that the product-seller must prove “by a preponderance of the 3 evidence that the harm was caused after the product’s “useful safe life” had expired.” RCW 4 7.72.060(1). Only after the product-seller satisfies meets its burden does the burden then shift to
5 the plaintiff. Therefore, Samsung must first demonstrate the “useful safe life” has passed before 6 Allstate has to rebut it. Because Samsung focuses its entire argument on the date of 7 manufacturing, it fails to meet its burden that the “useful safe life” has passed. The Court finds 8 this to be an additional reason to deny Samsung’s Motion. 9 Third, the legal standard makes clear that Allstate is not required to plead around 10 Samsung’s affirmative defense. A statute of repose, like a statute of limitations, is an affirmative 11 defense that bars a suit after a specific time period. The statute of repose at issue here also allows 12 for a plaintiff to overcome the useful life presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, 13 similar to how a plaintiff may overcome a statute of limitations via equitable tolling. The Ninth 14 Circuit has previously held that a plaintiff does not plead themselves out of court for simply
15 failing to plead around the statute of limitations. Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 16 1204, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of 17 limitations period may be granted only if the assertions of the complaint, read with the required 18 liberality, would not permit the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled.”) (internal citation 19 and quotation omitted); see also, Ortega v. Santa Clara Cnty. Jail, No. 19-17547, 2021 WL 20 5855066, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2021) (applying Supermail to hold that district court erred in 21 dismissing a case because the plaintiff did not need to demonstrate equitable tolling applied at 22 the Rule 12(b)(6) stage). Applying the standard here, Allstate does not need to “demonstrate” or 23 “present evidence” that it could overcome the useful life presumption. Rather, it must make
24 1 factual allegations that show a plausible claim for relief, Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 67, that does not 2 foreclose the possibility it may overcome the useful life presumption, Supermail Cargo, 68 F.3d 3 at 1206-07. Allstate’s complaint does not state when the washing machine was delivered. But 4 even if it was delivered over twelve years ago, the complaint does not foreclose the possibility
5 that Allstate may be able to demonstrate the washing machine has a useful life past the twelve 6 year presumption. Because Allstate has stated a claim for relief that is plausible and the alleged 7 facts do not foreclose the possibility that it could overcome the statute of repose, Samsung’s 8 Motion fails. 9 CONCLUSION 10 In viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Allstate, the Court finds Allstate has 11 stated a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Samsung has failed to demonstrate the 12 washing machine is past the twelve year “useful safe life” set forth in RCW 7.72.060. Samsung 13 also fails to demonstrate that even if the washing machine was past the “useful safe life” that 14 Allstate would be unable to overcome the safe life presumption. For these reasons the Court
15 DENIES Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss. 16 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 17 Dated December 5, 2023. A 18 19 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 20 21 22 23 24