Graco seats and class action claims

Graco's seats were the subject of a class action.  The company argued it offered a refund making the case moot, but the court found the refund offer insufficient.  


"Graco's proffer with respect to the recall is equally  weak. Graco insists that it offered a full refund in the recall drive. Dkt. No. 104 at 10. The facts again show that is not true -- if anything, Graco's recall theory is even less supported by the record than the March 2012 phone call. Graco points to several notices it published during the recall as purported evidence of the full refund opportunity. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 105 at Exs. 1-6. But not one of these documents comes anywhere close to showing that a refund was actually offered. These documents typically mention that Graco will provide only a replacement buckle without charge. See, e.g., id. at Ex. 1 (2014 recall notice stating: "Graco offers a new and improved replacement buckle to consumers at no cost."). None of the recall documents say anything at all about a refund of any sort, let alone offer a full refund as a standard part of the recall program. One of Graco's notices even expressly states that it was not in fact "replacing entire car seat units." Id at Ex. 4 (August 21, 2014, Frequently Asked Questions section of Graco's website stating: "This recall only affects the harness buckle on select infant car seats -- not the entire car seat. As such, we will continue to offer [12]  replacement harness buckles to any concerned consumer at no cost but are not replacing entire car seat units."). And Graco did not present any evidence showing that even one purchaser of the millions of car seats it recalled actually received a full refund.

These evidentiary failures doom Graco's motion. The cases Graco cites underscores this proof deficit. Those cases had clear evidence of actual payment or an actual offer of full refunds. In Amirhamzeh, for example, the Court found that defendants actually credited plaintiff's credit card account with a full refund of the disputed amount before she sued. Amirhamzeh, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23920, 2014 WL 641705, at *6-7. In Tosh-Surryhne, the Court found that defendant's product recall campaign expressly offered not only full purchase price refunds but also free products and coupons for future purchases. Tosh-Surryhne, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110107, 2011 WL 4500880, at *4. The facts in these cases, which show that plaintiffs had full refunds or express offers of full refunds firmly in hand, are a far cry from the facts Graco proffers here.
Consequently, the Court denies Graco's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The denial is without prejudice based on the record presently before the Court. It is possible that further developments in this case might uncover facts that warrant revisiting the issue. Subject matter jurisdiction is an ongoing concern that applies at every stage of a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S. Ct. 1055, 137 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1997). Graco may renew this motion if the factual record changes to address the deficiencies the Court has discussed.
The Court defers ruling on Graco's request to dismiss plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. The gist of the argument is that Graco no longer makes the defective buckles and that the recall has provided all the non-monetary [14]  relief plaintiff could possibly obtain in this case. Dkt. No. 104 at 11-12. These arguments have facial appeal and very well may carry day. But the Court will postpone ruling on them to see how the record develops. It assures the parties it will revisit the issue down the road.


III. MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONSDefendants seek to strike plaintiff's class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) on the grounds that the putative class is not ascertainable and that the class action is not a superior form of adjudication in light of Graco's recall. This issue will be deferred to the class certification stage to give the Court the benefit of a better developed record and arguments. "[M]any courts have recognized that the sufficiency of class allegations are better addressed through a class certification motion, after the parties have had an opportunity to conduct some discovery." Cruz v. Sky Chefs, Inc., C-12-02705 DMR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65114, 2013 WL 1892337, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013). See also, In re Wal—Mart Stores, Inc. Wage and Hour Litig., 505 F. Supp. 2d 609, 614-16 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("the granting of motions to dismiss class allegations before discovery has commenced is rare"); Moreno v. Baca, No. CV007149ABCCWX, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21368, 2000 WL 33356835, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2000) (defendants' motion to strike class allegations was premature because no motion for class certification had been filed).

• Graco's citations to cases involving recalls of cars are also not on point. In Winzler v. Toyota, a car owner's putative class action was rendered moot because Toyota's post-suit recall gave plaintiff exactly what she was requesting  from the court. Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. 681 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2012). Because plaintiff requested that (1) Toyota notify all owners of the defect and (2) repair or replace any faulty parts at no cost, and the recall provided "precisely the relief" plaintiff was seeking, plaintiff got "complete relief" and the claims were therefore moot. Id. at 1211. In Cheng v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. CV 12-09262 GAF SHX, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107580, 2013 WL 3940815, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2013), which had key facts "highly analogous to those in Winzler," the court found a claim for injunctive relief moot where an automobile recall      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long v. Graco Children's Prods., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174347, 10-13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014)