Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation

Background

Steve R. Rojas and Andrea N. Rojas brought a proposed consumer class action against Bosch Solar Energy Corporation concerning Bosch model c-Si M 60 NA30119 solar panels. They alleged two defects: solder joints that generated excessive heat and a backsheet that could delaminate, allowing air and moisture into the panels. They asserted warranty claims, a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, an alternative unjust-enrichment claim, and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

The plaintiffs alleged that Bosch had recalled certain roof-mounted panels because of a fire risk but excluded ground-mounted panels. They also alleged that Steve Rojas contacted Bosch in November 2017, reported the panels’ safety and performance problems, and sought replacement. The plaintiffs later alleged that many panels had delamination and cracking. Bosch moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing and choice of law

The plaintiffs lived in California but asserted claims under the laws of Arizona, Hawaii, Missouri, and North Carolina for residents of those states. The court followed the majority approach among courts in the district and granted the motion as to all claims asserted on behalf of residents of states other than California.

The Bosch warranty contained a Michigan choice-of-law provision. The court concluded that, to the extent the plaintiffs could enforce the warranty, they were bound by that provision. Applying California choice-of-law rules, the court held that Michigan law governed the warranty claims because Bosch was incorporated under Michigan law and maintained executive offices there. The court held that California law governed the unjust-enrichment claim because the choice-of-law provision covered disputes arising from the warranty, while the unjust-enrichment claim was pleaded as an alternative if the warranty did not apply.

Warranty claims

The court denied Bosch’s motion to dismiss the state-law warranty claims, Claims 1 and 3. The plaintiffs adequately alleged that the warranty was part of the basis of the bargain because they alleged that a solar contractor explained the warranty’s essential terms and that the warranty influenced the relevant transactions.

The court also denied dismissal based on Michigan’s pre-suit notice requirement. The plaintiffs alleged that Rojas notified Bosch of the defective panels, their fire risk, their underperformance, and his request for replacement on November 1, 2017. The court held that the plaintiffs did not need to use the technical term “delamination” when they reported symptoms allegedly caused by that defect.

The court further denied dismissal based on the warranty’s 90-day notice provision. The alleged November 1, 2017 notice occurred within 90 days of the earliest date Bosch argued that the notice obligation was triggered. The court also noted that the plaintiffs alleged written communications with Bosch that same day. Finally, the court denied Bosch’s argument that the plaintiffs had not alleged recoverable damages, reasoning that the availability of particular damages or remedies was not a basis to dismiss the warranty claims at the pleading stage.

The court denied Bosch’s motion to dismiss Claim 2 under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Although the plaintiffs had not alleged that they gave Bosch pre-suit notice that they were acting for a class, the court found that their detailed allegations about Bosch’s year-long handling of their individual replacement request supported an inference that class notice would have been futile. Because the underlying state-law warranty claim survived, Bosch’s related argument against the Magnuson-Moss claim also failed.

Unjust enrichment

The court denied dismissal of Claim 5. The plaintiffs alleged that they paid money under the prepaid solar agreement, that the money was used to purchase Bosch panels, and that Bosch received and retained a benefit at their expense. The court held that the claim could be pleaded in the alternative to the warranty claims and was adequately stated under California law at the pleading stage.

UCL and CLRA claims

The court granted Bosch’s motion to dismiss Claims 4 and 6, which alleged that warranty requirements for testing panels under technical “standard test conditions” were unconscionable. The court held that the plaintiffs had not alleged the required concrete injury: loss of money or property for the UCL claim, or damage for the CLRA claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the testing requirements might reduce the value of their home, that they had a contingent obligation to reimburse approximately $6,000 in consulting fees, and that Steve Rojas lost approximately five hours of work. The court found these allegations insufficient because the possible future testing costs were contingent, the consultant’s fees were voluntarily incurred to investigate the litigation, and the plaintiffs did not allege that Bosch required the testing or that the costs resulted from the challenged warranty provisions.

The court dismissed the UCL and CLRA claims without leave to amend. It relied in part on the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to cure the previously identified injury deficiency, the prejudice to Bosch from additional amendment, and the apparent futility of another amendment.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Bosch’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, without leave to amend. Specifically, it granted the motion without leave to amend as to claims asserted on behalf of residents of states other than California; granted the motion without leave to amend as to Claim 4 under the UCL and Claim 6 under the CLRA; and denied the motion as to Claims 1 through 3 for breach of warranty and Claim 5 for unjust enrichment. The order stated that the ruling concerning claims for residents of other states was without prejudice to a future noticed motion for leave to amend to add new class representatives. Bosch was ordered to answer by March 27, 2020.