Patterson v. RW Direct, INC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:18-cv-00055
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Patterson v. RW Direct, Judge Chhabria approved dismissal of Patterson’s individual claims with prejudice and putative class claims without prejudice to class members.
Keith Patterson’s individual claims were dismissed with prejudice. Putative class members were not included in that dismissal because the class claims were dismissed without prejudice to them. Patterson and the defendants each bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
In Patterson v. RW Direct, Keith Patterson brought a proposed class action against RW Direct, Inc. and Positec USA, Inc. involving a cordless mower and warranty and consumer-protection claims. The proposed class had not been certified, and no certification motion was pending.
The parties jointly requested dismissal. The order dismissed Patterson’s individual claims with prejudice, dismissed the putative class claims without prejudice to class members, and required each side to pay its own attorney’s fees and costs.
Judge Vince Chhabria approved the joint request and entered the dismissal on those terms. The order did not decide whether the alleged mower defects or the asserted claims had merit.
The detailed version
- Patterson v. RW Direct, INC · No. 3:18-cv-00055
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 23, 2019
Background
Keith Patterson filed a proposed class action against RW Direct, Inc., Positec USA, Inc., and unnamed defendants concerning the WORX WG782 14-Inch 24 Volt Cordless Mower. The complaint asserted ten claims, including express and implied warranty claims, a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a request for declaratory relief, California warranty claims, claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law, and California Commercial Code warranty claims.
The proposed class had not been certified, and no motion for class certification had been filed or was pending. The parties stated that no putative class members had filed another action, contacted the parties, or sought to intervene. They also stated that class counsel did not know the identities of the putative class members and that testing by Patterson’s expert had not substantiated the alleged defect claims.
Ruling
The parties jointly requested dismissal based on agreed terms. The court accepted and approved the request and dismissed Patterson’s individual claims with prejudice. It dismissed the putative class claims without prejudice to class members. Patterson and the defendants were each ordered to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
The order resolved the case without deciding the merits of the alleged mower defect or the underlying warranty and consumer-protection claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.