1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LISA FELICE, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04685-MMC
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 10 GUARDIAN TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND al., 11 Defendants. 12 Before the Court is defendants Guardian Technologies LLC and Lasko Products 13 14 LLC’s “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), 15 and to Strike Class Allegations Pursuant to FRCP 12(f),” filed May 9, 2024. Plaintiffs Lisa 16 Felice, Justin Garfield, and Nicholas Poston have filed opposition, to which defendants 17 have replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition 18 to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 19 BACKGROUND2 20 Defendants Guardian Technologies LLC and Lasko Products LLC “manufacture, 21 22 distribute, and sell” air purifiers, including “GermGuardian AC4300 and AC4825 Series 23 Air Purifiers,” as well as “replacement bulbs” for them. (See FAC ¶¶ 1, 38.) 24 The GermGuardian AC4300 Series and AC4825 Series Air Purifiers (hereinafter, 25 26 1 By order filed July 17, 2024, the Court took the matter under submission. 27 “the Products”) use HEPA filters. (See id. ¶¶ 39, 47.) 3 The Products additionally “feature 1 2 UV-C bulbs in their design,” which are “house[d] . . . in a compartment at the top of the 3 device” (see id. ¶ 37), and which “[d]efendants represented to consumers [gave] its 4 Products . . . materially greater antimicrobial capabilities than air purifiers which ‘only’ 5 used a HEPA filter” (see id. ¶ 25).4 6 Felice, “a citizen of California,” alleges she purchased “the GermGuardian 7 AC4825DLX 3-in-1 Air Cleaning Air Purifier from Defendants’ Amazon store page around 8 approximately April 2021 for $89.99.” (See id. ¶ 7.) Poston, “a citizen of California,” 9 10 alleges that he “purchased the GermGuardian AC4825E 4-in-1 Air Cleaning Air Purifier 11 from Defendants’ Amazon.com store page on January 26, 2023 for $99.99,” as well as 12 “replacement bulbs.” (See id. ¶ 8.) Garfield, “a citizen of California,” alleges that she 13 “purchased the GermGuardian AC4825E 4-in-1 Air Cleaning Air Purifier from Defendants’ 14 Amazon.com store on November 25, 2022 for $64.99,” as well as the “GermGuardian 15 AC4300BPTCA for $129.89.” (See id. ¶ 9.) 16 Plaintiffs allege “the UV feature in the [p]urifiers provides no actual material 17 18 antimicrobial benefit” (see id. ¶ 5), and that, in making their purchases, they “reviewed 19 the Product’s Amazon page and relied on Defendants’ warranties and representations on 20 the Amazon page about the Product’s antimicrobial capabilities prior to purchasing the 21 Product” (see id. ¶ 7-9). Specifically, plaintiffs allege they “reasonably relied on 22 [d]efendants’ representations and believed that the UV-C bulb housed within the Product 23 was capable of killing a material amount of microbes making it more effective against 24 25
26 3 HEPA is an acronym for “High Efficiency Particulate Air.” (See FAC ¶ 19.) 27 4 Defendants’ unopposed “Request for Judicial Notice” of the AC4825DLX and these airborne pathogens than standard air purifiers which only have HEPA filters.” (See 1 2 id. ¶¶ 7-9.) 3 Based on said allegations, plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of two 4 putative classes,5 assert the following three claims for relief: (1) “Violations of California’s 5 Consumer Legal Remedies Act (‘CLRA’)[,] Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.” (Count I); (2) 6 “Fraud” (Count II); (3) “Breach of Express Warranty” (Count III). 7 DISCUSSION 8 A. Failure to State a Claim 9 10 Defendants argue “[p]laintiffs' FAC fails to state a claim” (see Mot. at 9:11), and 11 that “[c]laims sounding in fraud, such as the CLRA and the fraud claim asserted here” do 12 not “satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened particularity standard” (see id. at 9:19-20). 13 1. Legal Standard 14 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal 15 theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal 16 theory.” See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Rule 17 18 8(a)(2), however, “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 19 pleader is entitled to relief.’” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 20 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Consequently, “a complaint attacked by a Rule 21 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.” See id. 22 Nonetheless, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 23 24 5 Plaintiffs assert claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a “Nationwide Class” 25 comprised of “[a]ll individual residents in the United States who purchased a GermGuardian AC4825E, AC4825W, AC4825DLX, AC4300, or replacement UV bulbs for 26 those products, during the applicable statutory period” and a “California subclass” comprised of “[a]ll California residents who purchased a GermGuardian AC4825E, 27 AC4825W, AC4825DLX, AC4300, or replacement UV bulbs for those products, during requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 1 2 cause of action will not do.” See id. (internal quotation, citation, and alteration omitted). 3 In analyzing a motion to dismiss, a district court must accept as true all material 4 allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the 5 nonmoving party. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). “To 6 survive a motion to dismiss,” however, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 7 material, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Factual 9 10 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 11 level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal 12 conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation 13 and citation omitted). 14 2. All Counts 15 The CLRA prohibits "[r]epresenting that goods . . . have . . . characteristics, . . . 16 benefits, or qualities . . . that they do not have” and “[r]epresenting that goods . . . are of a 17 18 particular standard, quality, or grade. . . . if they are of another.” See Cal. Civ. Code 19 § 1770(a)(5), (7). Under California law, the elements of fraud are: “(a) misrepresentation 20 (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or 21 ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) 22 resulting damage.” See Tom Trading, Inc. v. Better Blue, Inc., 26 F. App'x 733, 736 (9th 23 Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LISA FELICE, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04685-MMC
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 10 GUARDIAN TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND al., 11 Defendants. 12 Before the Court is defendants Guardian Technologies LLC and Lasko Products 13 14 LLC’s “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), 15 and to Strike Class Allegations Pursuant to FRCP 12(f),” filed May 9, 2024. Plaintiffs Lisa 16 Felice, Justin Garfield, and Nicholas Poston have filed opposition, to which defendants 17 have replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition 18 to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 19 BACKGROUND2 20 Defendants Guardian Technologies LLC and Lasko Products LLC “manufacture, 21 22 distribute, and sell” air purifiers, including “GermGuardian AC4300 and AC4825 Series 23 Air Purifiers,” as well as “replacement bulbs” for them. (See FAC ¶¶ 1, 38.) 24 The GermGuardian AC4300 Series and AC4825 Series Air Purifiers (hereinafter, 25 26 1 By order filed July 17, 2024, the Court took the matter under submission. 27 “the Products”) use HEPA filters. (See id. ¶¶ 39, 47.) 3 The Products additionally “feature 1 2 UV-C bulbs in their design,” which are “house[d] . . . in a compartment at the top of the 3 device” (see id. ¶ 37), and which “[d]efendants represented to consumers [gave] its 4 Products . . . materially greater antimicrobial capabilities than air purifiers which ‘only’ 5 used a HEPA filter” (see id. ¶ 25).4 6 Felice, “a citizen of California,” alleges she purchased “the GermGuardian 7 AC4825DLX 3-in-1 Air Cleaning Air Purifier from Defendants’ Amazon store page around 8 approximately April 2021 for $89.99.” (See id. ¶ 7.) Poston, “a citizen of California,” 9 10 alleges that he “purchased the GermGuardian AC4825E 4-in-1 Air Cleaning Air Purifier 11 from Defendants’ Amazon.com store page on January 26, 2023 for $99.99,” as well as 12 “replacement bulbs.” (See id. ¶ 8.) Garfield, “a citizen of California,” alleges that she 13 “purchased the GermGuardian AC4825E 4-in-1 Air Cleaning Air Purifier from Defendants’ 14 Amazon.com store on November 25, 2022 for $64.99,” as well as the “GermGuardian 15 AC4300BPTCA for $129.89.” (See id. ¶ 9.) 16 Plaintiffs allege “the UV feature in the [p]urifiers provides no actual material 17 18 antimicrobial benefit” (see id. ¶ 5), and that, in making their purchases, they “reviewed 19 the Product’s Amazon page and relied on Defendants’ warranties and representations on 20 the Amazon page about the Product’s antimicrobial capabilities prior to purchasing the 21 Product” (see id. ¶ 7-9). Specifically, plaintiffs allege they “reasonably relied on 22 [d]efendants’ representations and believed that the UV-C bulb housed within the Product 23 was capable of killing a material amount of microbes making it more effective against 24 25
26 3 HEPA is an acronym for “High Efficiency Particulate Air.” (See FAC ¶ 19.) 27 4 Defendants’ unopposed “Request for Judicial Notice” of the AC4825DLX and these airborne pathogens than standard air purifiers which only have HEPA filters.” (See 1 2 id. ¶¶ 7-9.) 3 Based on said allegations, plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of two 4 putative classes,5 assert the following three claims for relief: (1) “Violations of California’s 5 Consumer Legal Remedies Act (‘CLRA’)[,] Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.” (Count I); (2) 6 “Fraud” (Count II); (3) “Breach of Express Warranty” (Count III). 7 DISCUSSION 8 A. Failure to State a Claim 9 10 Defendants argue “[p]laintiffs' FAC fails to state a claim” (see Mot. at 9:11), and 11 that “[c]laims sounding in fraud, such as the CLRA and the fraud claim asserted here” do 12 not “satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened particularity standard” (see id. at 9:19-20). 13 1. Legal Standard 14 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal 15 theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal 16 theory.” See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Rule 17 18 8(a)(2), however, “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 19 pleader is entitled to relief.’” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 20 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Consequently, “a complaint attacked by a Rule 21 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.” See id. 22 Nonetheless, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief 23 24 5 Plaintiffs assert claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a “Nationwide Class” 25 comprised of “[a]ll individual residents in the United States who purchased a GermGuardian AC4825E, AC4825W, AC4825DLX, AC4300, or replacement UV bulbs for 26 those products, during the applicable statutory period” and a “California subclass” comprised of “[a]ll California residents who purchased a GermGuardian AC4825E, 27 AC4825W, AC4825DLX, AC4300, or replacement UV bulbs for those products, during requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 1 2 cause of action will not do.” See id. (internal quotation, citation, and alteration omitted). 3 In analyzing a motion to dismiss, a district court must accept as true all material 4 allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the 5 nonmoving party. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). “To 6 survive a motion to dismiss,” however, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 7 material, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Factual 9 10 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 11 level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal 12 conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation 13 and citation omitted). 14 2. All Counts 15 The CLRA prohibits "[r]epresenting that goods . . . have . . . characteristics, . . . 16 benefits, or qualities . . . that they do not have” and “[r]epresenting that goods . . . are of a 17 18 particular standard, quality, or grade. . . . if they are of another.” See Cal. Civ. Code 19 § 1770(a)(5), (7). Under California law, the elements of fraud are: “(a) misrepresentation 20 (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or 21 ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) 22 resulting damage.” See Tom Trading, Inc. v. Better Blue, Inc., 26 F. App'x 733, 736 (9th 23 Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and citation omitted). To state a claim for breach of express 24 25 warranty, under California law, the plaintiff must show “(1) [the seller] made an affirmation 26 of fact or promise or provided a description of its goods; (2) the promise or description 27 formed part of the basis of the bargain; (3) the express warranty was breached; and (4) Supp. 3d 1172, 1199 (S.D. Cal. 2021) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 1 2 By its prior order, the Court dismissed with leave to amend all said claims as 3 alleged in plaintiffs’ initial Complaint. In so ruling, the Court noted that “plaintiffs’ appear 4 to be pleading that [defendant’s advertising] statements are false or misleading because 5 the Products are not effective at killing a material amount of bacteria, viruses, and mold 6 upon their initial pass through” (see Oder Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Order 7 of Dismissal”), filed April 4, 2024, at 12:18-20), and that “nowhere does [any] defendant 8 claim that the germ-killing benefits of UV-C accrue entirely during the initial pass through 9 10 the unit” (see id. at 12:13-15 (quoting Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 16, at 8:21-23)). 11 By the instant motion, defendants contend “[p]laintiffs' causes of action still fail 12 because [p]laintiffs fail to identify any false or misleading statement.” (See Mot. at 9:26- 13 27.) In response, plaintiffs note that they “have removed the initial-pass allegations.” (See 14 Opp’n. at 4:1). As set forth below, however, the omission of initial-pass language fails to 15 cure the above-cited deficiency. 16 In support of their claims, plaintiffs rely on a study conducted by James Malley, 17 18 PhD (“Dr. Malley”).6 As alleged in the FAC, Dr. Malley “reviewed the AC4825 series 19 purifier and analyzed its design and its UV-C light ‘feature’”; in particular he “determined 20 the UV dose for each chamber [of said device] ‘by multiplying the irradiance by the 21 residence time for the maximum and minimum flow settings.’” (See FAC ¶¶ 60, 67.)7 Dr. 22 Malley’s methodology and calculations, which are set forth in detail in the FAC, 23 24
25 6 In the FAC, plaintiffs describe various findings made by Dr. Malley but do not provide his report as an exhibit thereto. 26 7 Plaintiffs allege “the [Products] listed in [the] complaint all feature substantially 27 the same design, and any differences which may exist between them are immaterial for demonstrate the study was designed to determine the UV-C dose in a single pass 1 2 through, and, as alleged in the initial Complaint, plaintiffs impliedly relied on such finding 3 in comparing the Products’ actual qualities with their qualities as represented by 4 defendants. (See Complaint ¶¶ 8, 52.) 5 There is nothing in defendants’ labeling or other statements about the Products, 6 however, even suggesting that the germ-killing benefits of UV-C light accrue entirely 7 during the initial pass through the unit, nor is there anything in the FAC to suggest a lack 8 of cumulative impact resulting from repeated passes. In short, there is nothing in the FAC 9 10 pertaining to Dr. Malley’s study nor are there any other allegations that render false 11 defendants’ statement that UV-C light helps kill pathogens to a greater extent than a 12 HEPA filter alone.8 13 Accordingly, each of plaintiffs’ claims is subject to dismissal for failure to plead a 14 false statement.9 15 B. Leave to Amend 16 Plaintiffs request “leave to amend to address any curable deficiencies the Court 17 18 may identify.” (See Opp’n. at 18:23-24.) Whether leave “should be granted is generally 19 determined by considering the following factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility 20 of amendment; (4) prejudice to the opposing party.” See Levine v. Safeguard Health 21 Enterprises, Inc., 32 F. App'x 276, 278 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, plaintiffs’ claims are 22 23 8 To the extent defendants argue plaintiffs again fail to meet the heightened 24 pleading standard of Rule 9(b), the Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have amended their complaint to allege they “relied on [d]efendants’ warranties and representations on the 25 [Products’] Amazon page[s]” (see ¶¶ FAC 7,8,9), and highlighted specific statements listed thereon (see id. ¶ 39, 43). 26 9 Given such ruling, the Court does not address herein defendants’ additional 27 arguments that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them as to the claims of non- 1 predicated on findings that are not inconsistent with any representation made by either 2 defendant, and, under such circumstances, the Court finds additional amendment would 3 be futile. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED, and the 6 FAC is hereby DISMISSED without further leave to amend. 7 8 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 9
Dated: July 30, 2024 LY. 11 MAXKINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 12
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28