Gardner v. Sensio Inc.

For plaintiff Cristen Gardner:

Jonathan M. Sedgh

Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group.

Michael Ram

Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group

George E. McLaughlin

McLaughlin Law Firm, P.C.

For defendant Sensio Inc.:

Ryan Donald Saba

Francesca Noel Dioguardi

Rosen Saba, LLP

Niraj Jayant Parekh

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

OPINION AND ORDER

2

DENISE COTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cristen Gardner brings this products liability on behalf of herself and a nationwide class against Sensio Inc. (“Sensio”), alleging that pressure cookers sold by Sensio contained a dangerously defective lid-locking mechanism. Sensio has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint (“FAC”) or, in the alternative, to strike the nationwide class allegations. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Background

The following facts are taken as true from the FAC. Sensio designs, manufactures, and distributes small home appliances including table-top kitchen appliances. Sensio distributes some of its products under the brand name “Bella,” and this brand includes a line of electric pressure cookers.

In the summer of 2018, plaintiff, a Florida resident with a home in New York, purchased a Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure Cooker (the “Product”) from a New York retailer. According to representations made by Sensio in its advertising and packaging when plaintiff purchased the Product, the Product was safe to use because its lid-locking apparatus ensured that the lid opened only when the internal pressure in the cooker was released.

3

On July 27, 2019, plaintiff's son and his girlfriend used the Product as intended. While using the Product, the lid opened while the contents were still under pressure, which resulted in severe burns to the plaintiff's son and his girlfriend. Plaintiff was not using the Product during this incident and was not physically injured by it. Additionally, there are no allegations that this incident caused damage to the plaintiff's property, beyond any damage caused to the Product itself.

The FAC asserts that the Product's lid-locking mechanism contained a defect in either design or manufacture. Sensio was aware of safer designs that did not reduce the utility of the Product or, alternatively, was aware of safer or more reliable methods of manufacture. Nonetheless, Sensio failed to implement these designs or methods. Additionally, Sensio failed to ensure that the Product complied with industry standards and failed to inspect the Product adequately. Finally, Sensio represented through packaging and product manuals that the Product was safe. Had plaintiff known that the Product was defective, she would not have purchased it, would have paid less for it, or would have returned it.

Plaintiff filed this action against Sensio on June 6, 2022, bringing seven claims for breach of express and implied

4

warranties, violation of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (the “MMWA”), fraud, unjust enrichment, deceptive acts or practices, and false advertising. Plaintiff brought her claims individually on behalf of a nationwide class and a New York subclass.^[1]The nationwide class was defined as:

All persons in the United States who purchased a Sensio Pressure cooker after March 1, 2016 (the “Nationwide Class”). The class includes purchasers of the following Sensio Pressure Cooker products:

a) the Bella 6-Quart 10 in 1 Multi Cooker;

b) the Bella 10-Quart Digital Multi Cooker;

c) the Bella 2-Quart Multicooker;

d) the Bella 6-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable Multi Cooker, Stainless Steel;

e) the Bella 8-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable Multi Cooker, Stainless Steel;

f) the Bella Pro Series 8-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable Multi Cooker;

g) the Bella Pro Series 6-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable Multi Cooker;

h) the Bella 5-Quart Pressure Cooker; and i) the Bella 8-Quart 10 in 1 Multi Cooker.

The New York subclass was defined as: “All persons who reside in the State of New York and who purchased a Sensio Pressure Cooker after March 1, 2016.”

On July 29, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In its motion, defendant argued, inter alia, that because plaintiff purchased only the Bella 8-Quart Electric

5

Pressure Cooker, it was “undisputed that Plaintiff did not purchase any of the foregoing pressure cookers” used to define the class and subclass. After defendant moved to dismiss, plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend her complaint and was warned that it was unlikely that she would have another opportunity to amend.

Plaintiff filed the FAC on August 19, asserting the same seven claims, plus an additional claim for strict liability.^[2]The FAC defines the nationwide class and the New York subclass in the same way as the original complaint. That is, as in the original complaint, the Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure Cooker is not one of the products used to set the boundaries of the class or subclass.

Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss the FAC or, in the alternative, to strike the class allegations on August 31. The motion was fully submitted on October 7.

Discussion

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint “must plead enough facts to state a claim

6

to relief that is plausible on its face.” Green v. Dep't of Educ. of City of New York, 16 F.4th 1070, 1076-77 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Charles v. Orange Cnty., 925 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “In determining if a claim is sufficiently plausible to withstand dismissal,” a court “accept[s] all factual allegations as true” and “draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.” Melendez v. City of New York, 16 F.4th 992, 1010 (2d Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff brings eight causes of action: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) strict liability; (4) violation of the MMWA; (5) fraud by omission; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) deceptive acts or practices, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 479; and (8) false advertising, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350. The first six claims are brought on behalf of a nationwide class, and the last two are brought on behalf of a New York subclass. For the following reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

7

I. Standing

A threshold issue is whether Gardner's allegations are sufficient at this stage to give her standing to sue on behalf of a class. Sensio contends that Gardner lacks standing to bring this class action because the only product she purchased was the Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure Cooker. For the purposes of this motion, plaintiff has standing to assert her claims individually and on behalf of the nationwide and New York classes.

The plaintiff's standing to sue the defendant is a “threshold question in every federal case.” Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)). To satisfy the standing requirements imposed by Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff “must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Melito v. Experian Mktg. Sols., Inc., 923 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016)).

In a putative class action, a plaintiff has standing to raise claims on behalf of a class if she alleges

(1) that [s]he personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the

8

defendant, and (2) that such conduct implicates the same set of concerns as the conduct alleged to have caused injury to other members of the putative class by the same defendants

NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145, 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).

Bizarrely, the Product the plaintiff purchased -- the Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure Cooker -- does not appear in the FAC's list of products defining the classes. It is unclear why the plaintiff defined the classes in this way, particularly after the defendant alerted her to the problem in its original motion to dismiss. Nonetheless, the Court assumes for the purposes of this motion that the plaintiff would not define the two classes in such a way as to exclude herself from them. Thus, based on the description and a photograph of the Product included in the FAC, the Court presumes (perhaps generously) that plaintiff's pressure cooker is one of the 8-quart pressure cookers in the list outlining the boundaries of the two classes.

Assuming plaintiff falls within the class, she has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate standing to bring the class claims. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's conduct caused her economic injury because the Product's lid-locking mechanism malfunctioned despite representations by the defendant that the lid was safe to use. Likewise, the FAC states that the other products listed in the class definitions suffered from

9

similar defects and were inaccurately described by the defendant in similar ways. Thus, taking the allegations as true, the conduct alleged to have injured the putative class implicates the same set of concerns as the conduct alleged to have injured plaintiff.

Defendant also argues that plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims under the laws of other states. But “whether a plaintiff can bring a class action under the state laws of...