1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE No. 2:20-cv-00606-JAM-KJN COMPANY, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING AMAZON.COM v. SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO 13 DISMISS ANKER INNOVATIONS LIMITED; 14 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. dba AMAZON.COM, INC.; and DOES 1 15 to 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Following a 2018 house fire, State Farm filed a subrogation 19 action against Anker Innovations Limited (“Anker Innovations”) 20 and Amazon.com Services, Inc. (“Amazon”) in Sacramento County 21 Superior Court. State Farm alleges an Anker-brand battery pack, 22 sold through Amazon, caused the fire. See Ex. A to Notice of 23 Removal (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 7-9, ECF No. 1-1. Amazon removed the case 24 to federal court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 25 Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3-8, ECF No. 1. 26 Following removal, State Farm dismissed one of its three 27 claims against Amazon. ECF No. 10; see also April 8, 2020 Order, 28 ECF No. 12. Amazon filed a motion to dismiss the remaining 1 negligence and strict liability claims shortly thereafter.1 2 Memo. ISO Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 13. State Farm 3 opposed the motion, ECF No. 16, and Amazon filed a reply, ECF No. 4 19. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Amazon’s 5 motion and dismisses State Farm’s claims without prejudice. See 6 Sims v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, 995 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1114 7 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, 8 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)) (“Dismissal with 9 prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it 10 is clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved by 11 amendment.”). 12 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 Shirley Temming and Scott Turney, both insured by State 15 Farm, are subragors in this action. Compl. ¶ 7. Temming owns 16 the property at 9040 Mojave Drive in Sacramento, California. Id. 17 In 2018, Temming had leased the property to Turney. Id. While 18 Turney was living at 9040 Mojave Drive, the property caught on 19 fire. Id. The fire began in the living room and resulted in 20 damage both inside and outside of the house. Id. 21 In the incident’s aftermath, an Anker-rand battery pack was 22 found “adhered to the living room [] tabletop.” Id. Two e- 23 cigarettes were plugged into the battery pack via USB charging 24 adapters. Id. State Farm’s expert examined the fire patterns on 25 the battery pack and concluded the Anker product caused the fire. 26
27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for June 2, 2020. 1 Compl. ¶ 8. According to the complaint, “[t]he [] battery pack 2 charger [was] purchased through Amazon.” Compl. ¶ 7. 3 4 II. OPINION 5 Amazon argues the Court should dismiss State Farm’s 6 negligence and strict liability claims for two reasons. First, 7 State Farm so commingles its allegations against the two 8 Defendants that Amazon lacks notice of what conduct State Farm 9 challenges. Mot. at 4-6. Second, State Farm allegations are 10 insufficiently particular to state a negligence or strict 11 liability claim. Id. at 6-10. Although the Court does not find 12 Amazon’s commingling argument persuasive, it agrees that State 13 Farm’s conclusory allegations fail to state either a negligence 14 claim or a strict products liability claim against Amazon. 15 A. Commingling Defendants 16 A complaint must give “fair notice of the claim being 17 asserted and the grounds upon which it rests.” In re Sagent 18 Tech., Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 19 (internal quotations omitted). When a complaint raises 20 allegations against multiple defendants without specifying who 21 engaged in what conduct, it fails to provide the type of notice 22 Rule 8 requires. Id. at 1094-95; see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8; 23 Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F. Supp. 1067, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1988) 24 (dismissing a complaint because the plaintiff failed to specify 25 each defendant’s alleged misconduct). 26 Amazon contends State Farm improperly “commingles its 27 allegations . . . lumping all defendants together and alleging 28 that all defendants committed all actions, without distinction.” 1 Mot. at 4. The Court disagrees. Admittedly, the complaint is 2 not a model of clarity. But a common-sense reading of the 3 allegations provides sufficient notice that State Farm 4 challenges (1) Anker’s production and sale of the battery pack, 5 and (2) Amazon’s facilitation of that sale. See Compl. ¶ 7 6 (“The battery pack is an Anker Astro 3E model.”); id. (“The 7 subject battery pack charger had been purchased through 8 Amazon.”); see also Opp’n at 6. The Court finds State Farm 9 adequately differentiated between Anker’s and Amazon’s conduct. 10 B. Strict Liability 11 The Court does not, however, find that State Farm’s 12 allegations support a strict liability claim against Amazon. In 13 ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all well- 14 pleaded facts as true, but they cannot assume the truth of 15 “unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions” simply 16 because they are “cast in the form of factual allegations.” 17 Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1109-10 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l 19 League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 20 2006). 21 As Amazon argues, California law recognizes three theories 22 of strict products liability: (1) manufacturing defect; 23 (2) design defect; and (3) failure-to-warn defect. Mot. at 6 24 (citing Lucas v. City of Visalia, 726 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1154 25 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). State Farm purports to allege all three 26 theories of liability. Compl. ¶¶ 18-25. But, to be sure, the 27 complaint provides no more than “a formulaic recitation of the 28 elements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 1 The Court recognizes that State Farm’s strict liability 2 incorporates by reference the factual allegations made in 3 paragraphs one through sixteen of its complaint. Compl. ¶ 17. 4 But those allegations, even taken as true, do not satisfy each 5 element of a strict products liability claim. For example, 6 State Farm concedes that a manufacturing defect claim requires 7 allegations that “the product differs from the manufacturer’s 8 design or specifications or from other typical units of the same 9 product line.” Compl. ¶ 19. But nothing in State Farm’s 10 complaint explains how the Anker battery pack is typically 11 designed or how the battery pack at issue differs from the norm. 12 Similar shortcomings plague each of State Farm’s theories of 13 strict products liability. See Compl. ¶¶ 18-25. 14 In short, State Farm’s complaint sets forth the elements of 15 a strict liability claim without alleging any facts to satisfy 16 those elements. Lucas, 726 F. Supp. 2d at 1155 (“The problem 17 with the allegation is that it simply tracks the general 18 elements of strict products liability and contains no pertinent 19 factual allegations.”). The Court dismisses this claim against 20 Amazon without prejudice. 21 C. Negligence 22 State Farm’s negligence claim likewise fails for its lack 23 of particularity. State Farm appears to allege Amazon 24 negligently distributed and supplied the Anker battery pack. 25 Compl. ¶ 11.
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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE No. 2:20-cv-00606-JAM-KJN COMPANY, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING AMAZON.COM v. SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO 13 DISMISS ANKER INNOVATIONS LIMITED; 14 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. dba AMAZON.COM, INC.; and DOES 1 15 to 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Following a 2018 house fire, State Farm filed a subrogation 19 action against Anker Innovations Limited (“Anker Innovations”) 20 and Amazon.com Services, Inc. (“Amazon”) in Sacramento County 21 Superior Court. State Farm alleges an Anker-brand battery pack, 22 sold through Amazon, caused the fire. See Ex. A to Notice of 23 Removal (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 7-9, ECF No. 1-1. Amazon removed the case 24 to federal court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 25 Notice of Removal ¶¶ 3-8, ECF No. 1. 26 Following removal, State Farm dismissed one of its three 27 claims against Amazon. ECF No. 10; see also April 8, 2020 Order, 28 ECF No. 12. Amazon filed a motion to dismiss the remaining 1 negligence and strict liability claims shortly thereafter.1 2 Memo. ISO Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 13. State Farm 3 opposed the motion, ECF No. 16, and Amazon filed a reply, ECF No. 4 19. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Amazon’s 5 motion and dismisses State Farm’s claims without prejudice. See 6 Sims v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, 995 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1114 7 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, 8 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)) (“Dismissal with 9 prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it 10 is clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved by 11 amendment.”). 12 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 Shirley Temming and Scott Turney, both insured by State 15 Farm, are subragors in this action. Compl. ¶ 7. Temming owns 16 the property at 9040 Mojave Drive in Sacramento, California. Id. 17 In 2018, Temming had leased the property to Turney. Id. While 18 Turney was living at 9040 Mojave Drive, the property caught on 19 fire. Id. The fire began in the living room and resulted in 20 damage both inside and outside of the house. Id. 21 In the incident’s aftermath, an Anker-rand battery pack was 22 found “adhered to the living room [] tabletop.” Id. Two e- 23 cigarettes were plugged into the battery pack via USB charging 24 adapters. Id. State Farm’s expert examined the fire patterns on 25 the battery pack and concluded the Anker product caused the fire. 26
27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for June 2, 2020. 1 Compl. ¶ 8. According to the complaint, “[t]he [] battery pack 2 charger [was] purchased through Amazon.” Compl. ¶ 7. 3 4 II. OPINION 5 Amazon argues the Court should dismiss State Farm’s 6 negligence and strict liability claims for two reasons. First, 7 State Farm so commingles its allegations against the two 8 Defendants that Amazon lacks notice of what conduct State Farm 9 challenges. Mot. at 4-6. Second, State Farm allegations are 10 insufficiently particular to state a negligence or strict 11 liability claim. Id. at 6-10. Although the Court does not find 12 Amazon’s commingling argument persuasive, it agrees that State 13 Farm’s conclusory allegations fail to state either a negligence 14 claim or a strict products liability claim against Amazon. 15 A. Commingling Defendants 16 A complaint must give “fair notice of the claim being 17 asserted and the grounds upon which it rests.” In re Sagent 18 Tech., Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 19 (internal quotations omitted). When a complaint raises 20 allegations against multiple defendants without specifying who 21 engaged in what conduct, it fails to provide the type of notice 22 Rule 8 requires. Id. at 1094-95; see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8; 23 Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F. Supp. 1067, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1988) 24 (dismissing a complaint because the plaintiff failed to specify 25 each defendant’s alleged misconduct). 26 Amazon contends State Farm improperly “commingles its 27 allegations . . . lumping all defendants together and alleging 28 that all defendants committed all actions, without distinction.” 1 Mot. at 4. The Court disagrees. Admittedly, the complaint is 2 not a model of clarity. But a common-sense reading of the 3 allegations provides sufficient notice that State Farm 4 challenges (1) Anker’s production and sale of the battery pack, 5 and (2) Amazon’s facilitation of that sale. See Compl. ¶ 7 6 (“The battery pack is an Anker Astro 3E model.”); id. (“The 7 subject battery pack charger had been purchased through 8 Amazon.”); see also Opp’n at 6. The Court finds State Farm 9 adequately differentiated between Anker’s and Amazon’s conduct. 10 B. Strict Liability 11 The Court does not, however, find that State Farm’s 12 allegations support a strict liability claim against Amazon. In 13 ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all well- 14 pleaded facts as true, but they cannot assume the truth of 15 “unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions” simply 16 because they are “cast in the form of factual allegations.” 17 Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1109-10 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l 19 League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 20 2006). 21 As Amazon argues, California law recognizes three theories 22 of strict products liability: (1) manufacturing defect; 23 (2) design defect; and (3) failure-to-warn defect. Mot. at 6 24 (citing Lucas v. City of Visalia, 726 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1154 25 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). State Farm purports to allege all three 26 theories of liability. Compl. ¶¶ 18-25. But, to be sure, the 27 complaint provides no more than “a formulaic recitation of the 28 elements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 1 The Court recognizes that State Farm’s strict liability 2 incorporates by reference the factual allegations made in 3 paragraphs one through sixteen of its complaint. Compl. ¶ 17. 4 But those allegations, even taken as true, do not satisfy each 5 element of a strict products liability claim. For example, 6 State Farm concedes that a manufacturing defect claim requires 7 allegations that “the product differs from the manufacturer’s 8 design or specifications or from other typical units of the same 9 product line.” Compl. ¶ 19. But nothing in State Farm’s 10 complaint explains how the Anker battery pack is typically 11 designed or how the battery pack at issue differs from the norm. 12 Similar shortcomings plague each of State Farm’s theories of 13 strict products liability. See Compl. ¶¶ 18-25. 14 In short, State Farm’s complaint sets forth the elements of 15 a strict liability claim without alleging any facts to satisfy 16 those elements. Lucas, 726 F. Supp. 2d at 1155 (“The problem 17 with the allegation is that it simply tracks the general 18 elements of strict products liability and contains no pertinent 19 factual allegations.”). The Court dismisses this claim against 20 Amazon without prejudice. 21 C. Negligence 22 State Farm’s negligence claim likewise fails for its lack 23 of particularity. State Farm appears to allege Amazon 24 negligently distributed and supplied the Anker battery pack. 25 Compl. ¶ 11. State Farm also alleges Amazon negligently 26 “fail[ed] to issue adequate instruction or warnings” for the 27 Anker product. Compl. ¶ 12. But these conclusions, again, lack 28 any factual support. State Farm does not establish that Amazon 1 owed a duty to the insurance company, Temming, or Turney. Nor 2 does it explain how Amazon breached its duty. State Farm does 3 not even identify who used Amazon to purchase the Anker charging 4 pack. See Compl. ¶ 7 (“The subject battery pack charger had 5 been purchased through Amazon.”). 6 As Amazon maintains, “All Plaintiff does is conclude that 7 Amazon’s actions must have been [negligent] because the battery 8 pack was allegedly defective.” Mot. at 8. This will not do. 9 See, e.g., Bem v. Stryker Corp., No. C 15-2485 MMC, 2015 WL 10 4573204, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2015); Cruz v. Sears, No. 12- 11 cv-00623-H(BGS), 2012 WL 13175896, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 12 2012). 13 State Farm does not oppose Amazon’s characterization in any 14 meaningful way. See Opp’n at 9. Its need to “conduct 15 destructive testing of the product[,] written discovery and 16 depositions,” id., does not absolve the complaint’s 17 deficiencies. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-68 (“Rule 8 marks a 18 notable and generous departure from the hypertechnical, code- 19 pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors 20 of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than 21 conclusions.”). The Court finds State Farm failed to adequately 22 allege a negligence claim against Amazon. Accordingly, the 23 Court dismisses this claim without prejudice. 24 25 III. ORDER 26 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES 27 Plaintiff’s negligence and strict liability claims against Amazon 28 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiffs elect to amend their complaint 2 OU UNUM EAINTUING IN ORIOL CO PIR YEIVOTreYy PT OAywm rr Ve
1 with respect to these claims, they shall file an amended 2 complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order. Defendant’s 3 responsive pleading is due twenty (20) days thereafter. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: July 7, 2020 kA 7 Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28