Johnson v. Glock, Inc.

Background

Steven C. Johnson alleged that certain Glock handguns contain an “Unsupported Chamber Defect.” According to the complaint, overly long feed ramps provide insufficient support for a round in the chamber, creating excess pressure when the gun is fired. Johnson alleged that this could bulge and damage brass casings, making them unusable for reloaded ammunition, and could sometimes cause a “blow out” in which part of the casing is dislodged.

Johnson alleged that he owned a .45-caliber Glock handgun, but he did not allege who sold it to him, when he purchased it, or how he acquired it beyond stating that it was in Alameda County. He also did not allege that his own casings had been damaged or that his gun had experienced a blow out. He brought nine causes of action: claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, negligence, strict products liability, express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent omission, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising Law, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. He brought all but the Magnuson-Moss claim for himself and a proposed class.

Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court generally accepts well-pleaded allegations as true at this stage, but it need not accept conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences. The court also applied Rule 9(b), which requires fraud-based claims to describe the circumstances of the alleged fraud with particularity, including the basic details of who, what, when, where, and how. Because the complaint could potentially be corrected by adding facts, the court granted leave to amend.

Misrepresentation and omission claims

Johnson clarified that his claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and his fraudulent-omission claim were based on omissions, with alleged affirmative statements relevant only as partial representations.

The court dismissed these claims with leave to amend because Johnson did not plead fundamental details about his purchase, including where, from whom, when, or under what conditions he bought the gun. Without those facts, the court could not determine when and where he might have encountered Glock’s alleged omissions or representations. The court stated that omission-based fraud claims may sometimes be pleaded with less specificity than ordinary misrepresentation claims, but Johnson’s allegations did not meet even that standard.

The court separately concluded that Johnson plausibly alleged that the claimed defect could create an unreasonable safety hazard because a piece of metal could be dislodged from a handheld firearm. The court also found that the lack of an actual injury did not by itself defeat the alleged safety hazard at the pleading stage. But the missing purchase information made it unclear whether Glock knew about the defect when Johnson bought the gun, so the claims were dismissed with leave to amend on that and other pleading grounds.

Request for injunctive relief

The court dismissed Johnson’s request for injunctive relief with leave to amend because he had not pleaded a future injury sufficient to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. He did not allege that he would consider buying a Glock or a competing product in the future. The court rejected Glock’s argument that Johnson’s allegation that he would not have bought the gun, or would have paid less, necessarily eliminated any possibility of future standing. The court explained that a future desire to purchase the gun could potentially be alleged if Johnson could trust Glock’s representations, but Johnson had not pleaded such facts.

Negligence and strict products liability

The court dismissed Johnson’s negligence and strict-products-liability claims with leave to amend. Under the economic-loss rule discussed by the court, these tort claims generally require physical injury or property damage rather than purely economic loss. Johnson conceded that he needed to show physical injury or property damage, but he alleged only that the guns could injure people or damage casings. He did not allege that either event happened to him. The court stated that possible injuries to unnamed proposed class members could not substitute for an injury to Johnson himself.

Express warranty and Magnuson-Moss claims

The court dismissed the express-warranty claim with leave to amend. Johnson identified statements that Glock firearms were reliable, safe for ordinary use, and free from defects, but he did not clearly identify which warranties applied, how they were breached, or the circumstances of his purchase. His failure to allege when or from whom he bought the gun also made it difficult to determine whether any statement was made by a seller, applied to the transaction, or formed part of the basis of the bargain.

The court also dismissed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim with leave to amend because that claim depended entirely on the express-warranty and implied-warranty claims.

Implied warranty of merchantability

The court found that Johnson’s allegations about fitness for ordinary use were sufficient at the pleading stage. A gun that might unpredictably experience a blow out during normal use could plausibly be unfit for its ordinary purpose, and the implied warranty could be violated even without the dangerous effect actually occurring.

Nevertheless, the court dismissed the implied-warranty claim with leave to amend because Johnson refused to plead when he purchased the gun. That information was necessary for Glock to raise and litigate a possible statute-of-limitations defense. Johnson’s allegations of fraudulent concealment also were insufficient because he did not plead that defense with the required particularity or provide a purchase date. The court noted that Johnson alleged discovering the concealment around August 2020, but did not clearly allege when he discovered the defect.

Class allegations and disposition

Glock separately moved to strike the class allegations. The court did not address them because no individual claims remained and an amended complaint would need to resolve several uncertainties first.

The conclusion states: “The motion to dismiss and strike is GRANTED with leave to amend.” The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 30 days of February 8, 2021.