Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Lepkowski v. Camelbak Prods., LLC

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

December 12, 2019, Decided; December 12, 2019, Filed

Case No. 19-cv-04598-YGR


Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint

Re: Dkt. No. 18

Plaintiff Rachel Lepkowski brings this action against defendants CamelBak Products, LLC and CamelBak International LLC (collectively, "CamelBak"). Lepkowski brings an amended class action complaint concerning all CamelBak eddy water bottles, and alleges violations of various consumer protection laws as to the bottles' "spill-proof" claims. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2.) Specifically, Lepkowski brings nine claims including: (i) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301; (ii) breach of express warranty; (iii) breach of the warranty of merchantability; (iv) unjust [*2]  enrichment; (v) violation of California's Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.; (vi) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (vii) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., (viii) negligent misrepresentation; and (ix) fraud.

Now before the Court is CamelBak's motion to dismiss Lepkowski's first amended class action complaint. Having carefully reviewed the pleadings, the papers submitted on each motion, the parties' oral arguments at the hearing held on December 10, 2019, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court concludes that the Lepkowski lacks Article III standing to pursue the claims in this matter. Accordingly, the Court Grants CamelBak's motion to dismiss Lepkowski's first amended class action complaint.


The Court limits the following summary to the facts relevant in deciding the disposition of this motion.

On May 16, 2019, counsel for CamelBak, Todd Maiden, sent a letter in response to a prior letter sent by Lepkowski on April 18, 2019. (Dkt. No. 18-1 at 13-14 (Maiden Decl., Ex. B).) In this letter, Maiden writes that CamelBak has "unconditionally sent Ms. Lepkowski . . . a new 25 ounce Camelbak Eddy Water Bottle [*3]  as a free replacement for Ms. Lepkowski's Water Bottle (attached)." (Id.) Further, "also enclosed with th[e] letter [was] an unconditional refund check made payable to Ms. Lepkowski in the amount of $20.00, which [was] intended to be more than she paid for her water bottle at Sports Basement," and which estimate was based on a webpage showing a price of $14.00 for the product, and adding an additional $6.00 to conservatively cover additional sales tax or price variation. (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 18-1 at 15 (check), 16 (shipping label).)1

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.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214555 *; 2019 WL 6771785


Prior History: Lepkowski v. Camelbak Prods., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187849 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2019)


water bottle, class action, motion to dismiss, settlement, lawsuit, courts, moot, injunctive relief, allegations, monetary, refund