A federal judge from the Central District of California has granted a motion to dismiss filed by Riddell, Inc. and another defendant in a case in which they were sued by the parent of a high school football player, who died as a result of the head injury he sustained during a game.
The player, Tyler Lewellen, suffered the injury during a high school football scrimmage game on August 22, 2013. The injury occurred when Lewellen was “involved in a tackle” that “resulted in a blow to his helmet,” which was allegedly “designed, manufactured, and fitted by . . . Riddell and refurbished, fitted, and/or sold” by the co-defendant, Gunther’s Athletic Service, Inc.
The plaintiff claimed the defective condition of the helmet caused Lewellen’s death, asserting three state law claims against the defendants: “(1) product liability; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of warranty.”
On December 28, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and sought “a more definite statement,” pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e). Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of warranty.
In its analysis, the court noted that when evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court “must accept all material allegations in the complaint—as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them—as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).”
Elaborating on this, the court noted that “the plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).”
The defendants argued that the complaint “fails to allege sufficient facts supporting a claim for breach of warranty and punitive damages. In their motion for a more definite statement, the defendants alternatively move to compel the plaintiff to provide a more definite statement as to her breach of warranty claim.”
In its analysis, the court focused on “a general rule,” which establishes that “privity of contract is a required element of a . . . breach of warranty cause of action.” Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Products, Inc., 54 Cal. App. 4th 357, 369, 62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701 (1997).”
For more on privity, see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract
The court concluded, “the complaint fails to state either an express or implied breach of warranty claim because it fails to plead either privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, or facts demonstrating an exception to the privity requirement. Indeed, while the complaint claims Lewellen ‘obtained the helmet [at issue] . . . for use during high school football practices, scrimmages, and games,’ it does not specify whether Lewellen or the plaintiff actually purchased the helmet from and entered into privity of contract with the defendants. The complaint also fails to allege any facts demonstrating an exception to the privity requirement. Consequently, the complaint fails to state a claim for either breach of express or implied warranty.”
The court did, however, grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
Tina York v. Riddell, Inc., et al.; C.D. Cal.; EDCV 15-02015-VAP (SPx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22677; 2/23/16
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Jonathan Alan Falcioni, Patricia A. Law, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Patricia A. Law PC, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. (for defendant) James J. Yukevich, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bryan Corey Zaverl, David Arthur Turner, Thomas Borncamp, Yukevich Cavanaugh, Los Angeles, CA.
