Diew v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

Background

Danine Diew bought an Aeiusny lithium battery through Amazon.com Services, LLC’s website in October 2019. The invoice identified “AEIUSNY” as the seller. In August 2020, the battery allegedly exploded and caught fire inside the plaintiffs’ home. The plaintiffs alleged injuries, property loss, and displacement from the home for approximately two months. Danine Diew and her minor child, J.D.D., sued Amazon on claims for negligent product liability, strict product liability based on design and manufacturing defects, strict product liability based on failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty.

Amazon’s Motion

Amazon moved to dismiss all claims. It argued that the plaintiffs had not pleaded enough facts about the defects supporting the negligence and strict-liability claims, had not pleaded facts supporting punitive and exemplary damages, had not shown the required relationship between the parties for an implied-warranty claim, and had not identified any statement by Amazon creating an express warranty.

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss: the complaint had to provide enough factual content to make the claims plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

Product-Liability Claims

The plaintiffs alleged that the battery’s defects could have included thermal runaway causing excessive heat and pressure, over-current problems leading to short-circuiting, and impurities in the electrolyte solution causing overheating. The court held that these allegations specifically identified defects connected to the battery’s explosion and resulting injuries. The court therefore denied Amazon’s request to dismiss the negligent and strict product-liability claims.

For the strict-liability failure-to-warn claim, the court also concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the battery was dangerous and defective and that the defendants failed to warn users. The court relied on a California appellate decision recognizing potential third-party product liability for Amazon, while noting that the decision did not resolve Amazon’s liability for negligent product liability.

The court held that the negligent-product-liability claim could proceed because the plaintiffs alleged a risk and facts about Amazon’s management of its website and third-party vendors sufficient to provide notice of the claim. Whether Amazon knew about the risk was a factual question better addressed at summary judgment, not on a motion to dismiss.

Punitive and Exemplary Damages

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew the battery’s design was defective and acted with conscious disregard for user safety. The court expressed skepticism about whether the plaintiffs could ultimately prove entitlement to punitive and exemplary damages, but held that the issue involved facts that might be within Amazon’s exclusive knowledge. Given the allegation of an exploding battery, the court denied the motion to dismiss the punitive and exemplary damages allegations.

Warranty Claims

The plaintiffs did not oppose Amazon’s argument that they had not identified an express warranty. The court dismissed the express-warranty claim with prejudice.

The court dismissed the implied-warranty claim because the plaintiffs did not plead facts establishing the required privity, meaning the legally relevant relationship between the parties for that claim. The court dismissed that claim without prejudice and with leave to amend. It explained that the battery could plausibly have been unfit for ordinary use, but the question was whether the implied-warranty claim could proceed against Amazon when the invoice identified Aeiusny as the seller.

Disposition

The court dismissed the implied-breach-of-warranty claim without prejudice and with leave to amend, dismissed the breach-of-express-warranty claim with prejudice, and otherwise denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were required to file any amended complaint within three weeks and attach a version showing changes from the existing complaint. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order on June 15, 2021.