Brandon v. Sensio, Inc.

Background

Delana Brandon brought a proposed class action against Sensio, Inc., concerning a pressure cooker. She alleged that she purchased the cooker on July 22, 2018, and that on April 7, 2019, she opened its lid while it was cooking, causing hot contents to spill onto her. She alleged that she suffered burns to almost 20 percent of her body.

Brandon alleged that she initially believed the incident was an unexplained occurrence. She later searched online for information about the pressure cooker and possible injuries but found nothing. On August 10, 2023, Sensio announced a recall covering the model she had purchased. The recall stated that the lid could unlock and be removed during use, allowing hot contents to splash out. Brandon alleged that she first learned of the defect through the recall and unsuccessfully sought a refund.

Brandon asserted two claims: deceptive practices under Section 59.1-200 of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and common-law unjust enrichment. Sensio moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim.

Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim

The court held that the Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Act provides a two-year limitations period, running from when the claim accrued. Under the Virginia law discussed by the court, a claim involving deception or misrepresentation accrues when the problem is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered through due diligence.

The court concluded that Brandon’s claim accrued no later than April 7, 2019, when the pressure cooker incident caused extensive burns and gave her reason to suspect that the product was defective. The court held that the later recall did not delay accrual merely because it provided more specific information about the alleged defect. The court also held that Brandon’s internet search and belief that the incident was a freak occurrence did not plausibly show the required diligence. Because the two-year period expired before the action was filed, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to the Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim.

Unjust-enrichment claim

The court also held that Brandon’s unjust-enrichment claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Under the Virginia law applied by the court, such claims have a three-year limitations period that begins when the alleged unjust enrichment occurs, not when the plaintiff discovers it. The court therefore determined that the period began on July 22, 2018, when Brandon purchased the pressure cooker, and expired three years later.

The court rejected Brandon’s request to toll, or pause, the limitations period until the 2023 recall. It stated that Virginia strictly enforces statutes of limitations and that equitable tolling requires diligent pursuit of rights and extraordinary circumstances, such as obstruction or fraud. The court found that the amended complaint did not allege those circumstances. It granted the motion to dismiss as to the unjust-enrichment claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied leave to amend the complaint because amendment would be futile. It had determined as a matter of law that both claims were time-barred: the Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim accrued no later than April 7, 2019, and the unjust-enrichment claim accrued on July 22, 2018.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Sensio’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied leave to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 25.