SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - A federal judge has gutted one of the first class action lawsuits that claims the makers of gas stoves have committed consumer fraud by portraying the items as safe when they emit harmful emissions.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, of the Northern District of California, on Feb. 13 mostly granted the motion to dismiss filed by Haier, the parent company of GE Appliances.
Lawyers at Dovel & Luner sued Haier in March, arguing their plaintiff Charles Drake would not have purchased or paid as much for his gas stove if head known its emissions were harmful.
Drake's and a similar case, brought by the same lawyers against BSH Home Appliances Corporation, were filed after media coverage of gas stove emissions exploded. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission had announced it was considering regulation that many feared would lead to a ban on gas stoves.
Martinez-Olguin called Drake's case a no-injury product liability case (which aren't allowed) recast as a consumer fraud claim - something the Ninth Circuit has been critical of. The judge, however, said Drake sufficiently alleged an actionable defect at this early stage of the case.
But Martinez-Olguin still tossed almost all of his claims. She threw out claims for violations of consumer protection laws of other states than California, where Drake resides.
She dismissed claims under several California consumer protection statutes, with prejudice. Also failing were claims of fraudulent omission, breach of the implied warranty of fitness and unjust enrichment.
"Drake does not allege the necessary elements of fraud by omission under California law," Martinez-Olguin wrote.
"Most glaringly, Drake fails to plead the second and fourth elements of fraud by omission: that Haier held a duty to disclose the fact of the emissions to him, or that Drake justifiably relied on Haier's concealment of the dangerous emissions from his gas stove."
Later, Martinez-Olguin wrote, "Drake alleges no connection between Haier and the studies he cites, appearing to conclude merely that Haier 'should have known.' This does not meet the specificity required for claims sounding in fraud."
The only surviving claim is Drake's argument for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Though most claims were dismissed with prejudice, lawyers can try for an amended complaint by March 14.