Faison v. Walmart Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01024
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VERNITA FAISON, No. 2:24-cv-01024-DJC-CSK 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 WALMART INC., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s initial 17 Complaint. (ECF No. 19.) At oral argument, the Court partially denied on the Motion, 18 finding that Plaintiff had Article III standing, Plaintiff had standing under the UCL, FAL, 19 and CLRA, the economic loss rule did not bar Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation 20 claims, and Plaintiff could pursue both legal and equitable claims at this stage of the 21 proceedings. The Court took the remainder of the Motion under submission. After 22 further consideration, the Court denies the remainder of Defendants’ Motion to 23 Dismiss for the reasons stated below. 24 The Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to 25 comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Plaintiff has stated with particularity 26 the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud such that Defendants have adequate 27 notice of Plaintiff’s claims. See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 28 2009). While the Complaint did not include certain details about the testing 1 performed on the sheet in the Complaint, Plaintiff openly provided some information 2 at oral argument and the Court already ordered Plaintiff to disclose information about 3 this testing in its initial disclosures. The facts within the Complaint are sufficient to 4 satisfy Rule 9(b) and therefore, Defendants’ request to dismiss the Complaint for 5 failure to allege sufficient facts to support her claim is denied. 6 Plaintiff has also alleged sufficient facts in the Complaint to state UCL claims. As 7 already noted, Plaintiff has included adequate factual allegations to support a 8 fraudulent prong claim under the UCL. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants violated 9 the CLRA, FAL, and FTC Act are enough to also support both unlawful and unfair 10 prong claims. See Naranjo v. Dr.’s Med. Ctr. of Modesto, 90 Cal. App. 5th 1193, 1220 11 (2023); see also Roper v. Big Heart Pet Brand, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 3d 903, 921 (E.D. Cal. 12 2020). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s UCL claims. 13 Plaintiff’s Breach of Express Warranty claims are also adequately alleged. While 14 Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not stated exactly when she discovered the breach 15 of the warranty, Plaintiff has alleged that she provided written notice “shortly after 16 Plaintiff discovered the breach . . . .” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 137.) Whether notice was provided 17 within a reasonable time after the discovery of the breach is a factual question that 18 courts generally cannot resolve at the motion to dismiss stage. See Keegan v. Am. 19 Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 3d 929, 951 n.63 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“The complaint 20 does not state precisely when Keegan discovered the problem and notified Honda. 21 Whether or not notice was given within a reasonable time, however, is a fact question 22 that cannot be determined in the context of a motion to dismiss.”); see also Mexia v. 23 Rinker Boat Co., 174 Cal. App. 4th 1297, 1307 (2009) (“[T]he question of whether the 24 buyer notified the seller of a breach within a reasonable time is usually a question of 25 fact that cannot be decided at the pleading stage.”). While Defendants cite Lengen v. 26 Gen. Mills, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (E.D. Cal. 2016), that case is clearly 27 distinguished by the fact that the plaintiffs there failed to provide any notice to the 28 defendants. Id. at 1223 (“Plaintiffs concede that notice was not given . . . .”) Plaintiff’s 1 | statement that notice was provided “shortly after” the alleged breach was discovered 2 | is sufficient at this stage where all allegations are taken as true. 3 The Court construes Plaintiff's Unjust Enrichment claim as a quasi-contract 4 | claim. See Echo & Rig Sacramento, LLC v. AmGuard Ins., 698 F. Supp. 3d 1210, 1218 5 || (E.D. Cal. 2023). For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 6 | adequately plead facts with particularity to support this claim. Thus, Defendants’ 7 | Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Unjust Enrichment claim is also denied. 8 The Court's ruling above, together with its prior oral ruling, denies each of the 9 | bases for dismissal raised in Defendants’ Motion. As such, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED 10 | that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ October 1, 2024 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | DJct -faison24ev1024.mtd 27 28