Huffman v. Electrolux N. Am., Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division
August 13, 2013, Filed
Case No. 3:12CV2681
This is a class action products liability suit against Electrolux North America, Inc. (Electrolux). Plaintiff asserts a variety of common-law and statutory products liability claims against Electrolux. Pending is Electrolux's partial motion to dismiss plaintiff's common-law products liability claims and strike plaintiff's class allegations (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 14) to which defendant has replied (Doc. 15).
This court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (d)(2), (6).
For the reasons that follow, I grant the motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part and deny the motion to strike the class allegations.
Factual [**2] Background
In April, 2008, plaintiff Maureen Huffman bought a Frigidaire front-loading high efficiency washing machine from Lowes Home Improvement Center in Fremont, Ohio. Electrolux manufactured the washing machine.
Plaintiff's front-loading washer came with a one-year limited warranty:
Your appliance is covered by a one year limited warranty. For one year from your original date of purchase, Electrolux will pay all costs for repairing or replacing any parts of this appliance that prove to be defective in materials or workmanship.
Claims based on implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, are limited to one year or the shortest period allowed by law, but not less than one year.
[*878] Plaintiff alleges that sometime in 2011 she noticed a pungent odor coming from the area of her washing machine. According to plaintiff, the smell became so severe that she had to contact a plumber to investigate the problem.
In July and August of 2012, Huffman complained to Electrolux and demanded it fix the problem. Electrolux suggested running the wash cycle using vinegar and/or using the hot water cycle and leaving the machine's door open to let it air [**3] out. None of the company's suggestions abated the odor.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
961 F. Supp. 2d 875 *; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117531 **; 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 402; 2013 WL 4428803
Maureen Huffman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Electrolux North America, Inc., Defendant
Subsequent History: Dismissed by, in part, On reconsideration by Huffman v. Electrolux Home Prods., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146493 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 30, 2013)
Motion granted by, Summary judgment granted by Huffman v. Electrolux Home Prods., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124259 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 17, 2015)
warranty, machine, manufacturing, common-law, repair, replace, certification, compensatory, one-year, Assembly, odor, expired, merchantability, experienced, discovery, claimant, consumer, front-loading, causation, seller, washer
Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Torts, Products Liability, General Overview, Preponderance of Evidence, Types of Damages, Compensatory Damages, Types of Losses, Economic Losses, Remedies, Damages, Theories of Liability, Negligence, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom to Petition, Negligence, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Commercial Law (UCC), Contract Provisions, Warranties, Express Warranties, Standards of Performance & Liability, Breach, Excuse & Repudiation, Limitations & Modifications, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Buyer Remedies, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Certification of Classes, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Prerequisites for Class Action, Commonality, Superiority