Mealey's (October 25, 2018, 1:50 PM EDT) -- LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Oct. 23 dismissed numerous warranty claims asserted by purchasers of laptops made for gaming, but held that the consumers sufficiently pleaded violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims because they specified the model of allegedly defective laptops and the alleged misrepresentations made about them (Casey Thornton, et al. v. Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-cv-03231, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181912).
(Opinion available. Document #58-181120-011Z.)
Laptops
Casey Thornton and Carl Jones filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against MSI Computer Corp., Micro-Star International Co. Ltd. and Does 1-25. MSI designs, makes, sells and distributes computers, including the GT72 series and GT80 series laptops, which are made for gaming. Thornton and Jones assert that the laptops can be upgraded to have better graphics processing units (GPUs) made by NVIDIA Corp.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants advertised the laptops as being able to be upgraded from the NVIDIA GPUs that were included in the laptops to a later generation of NVIDIA GPUs. The plaintiffs allege that the laptops did not have the benefits that were advertised by MSI and Micro-Star and that the laptops could not be upgraded by even one generation, among other claims.
Dismissal
The District Court granted a motion filed by MSI and Micro-Star to dismiss the complaint. Thornton and Jones filed an amended complaint, which was also dismissed with leave to amend. Thornton and Jones filed a second amended complaint, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and common counts of assumpsit, restitution, unjust enrichment and quasi-contract.
Thornton and Jones also asserted causes of action for violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., the UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., the Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.
The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.
UCL
The defendants argued that the CLRA and UCL claims failed because they were not pleaded with the required particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). They argued that Thornton and Jones failed to identify the “who and how” of their alleged misrepresentations.
In the previous order dismissing the CLRA and UCL claims, Judge Christina A. Snyder said the District Court held that those claims sounded in fraud and, therefore, did not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). She said the second amended complaint cured the defects in the previous complaint as to the UCL and CLRA claims.
“Plaintiffs' second amended complaint specifically identifies the laptop models plaintiffs purchased, as well as the GPU models included in the laptops. Plaintiff Thornton purchased an MSI GT72 Dominator 6QD laptop, containing a single NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 GPU. . . . Plaintiff Jones purchased an MSI GT80S Titan SLI-012 laptop, containing two NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M GPUs. . . . Plaintiffs further allege that defendants' alleged misrepresentations pertained to these models,” Judge Snyder said.
The judge denied the motion to dismiss the UCL and CLRA claims.
Warranty
Judge Snyder said the motion should be denied as to the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract. She said the plaintiffs alleged that MSI and Micro-Star advertised that they could upgrade the laptops, which was an offer, which they accepted by purchasing the products. In addition, she said Thornton and Jones’ allegation that the defendants breached a contract by failing to allow consumers to upgrade their computers stated a valid claim. The judge also refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of express warranty. She said the complaint alleged specifics about the laptops.
However, Judge Snyder held that the claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability should be dismissed because as alleged in the complaint the laptops are gaming machines, which was the ordinary use. Judge Snyder denied the motion as to the Song-Beverly claim on the basis of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. However, she granted dismissal of the Song-Beverly claim based on the implied warranty of merchantability. The judge also denied the motion to dismiss the Magnuson-Moss breach of express warranty claim.
In sum, the judge denied the motion to dismiss Thornton and Jones’ claims for breach of contract, fraud-based claims under the CLRA and UCL, breach of express warranty under the California Commercial Code and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claims and common counts. However, the judge dismissed the other claims under the Song-Beverly Act and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the California Commercial Code and under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act with prejudice.
The plaintiffs are represented by Alan M. Mansfield of The Consumer Law Group of California in San Diego and Kenneth A. Remson and Jeff S. Westerman of Westerman Law Corp. in Los Angeles. MSI and Micro-Star are represented by Bridget Anne Freeman of Paramount Pictures Corp. and Bryan A. Merryman of White and Case, both in Los Angeles.
