Watkins v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.

Background

The case began as a proposed class action by Robin Watkins and Adam Sensney under the Class Action Fairness Act. They alleged that MGA’s 2-in-1 Glamper Fashion Camper had a defective button that could trap a child’s finger. The earlier complaint asserted negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. After the court granted MGA’s earlier motion to dismiss with leave to amend, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.

The Second Amended Complaint named only Sensney as a plaintiff and asserted two claims: breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of an express warranty that the toy was safe for children ages three and older. The complaint alleged that Sensney’s mother-in-law bought the Glamper from an online retailer for $89.99 for the benefit of Sensney’s seven-year-old daughter.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-supported factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the plaintiff, but it does not accept legal conclusions or unsupported assertions.

Implied-Warranty Claim

The court held that the implied-warranty claim failed because the complaint did not allege vertical privity. Privity means the legally required connection between the parties to a contract. The court explained that California generally requires privity for an implied-warranty claim and that a consumer who buys a product from a retailer is not in privity with the manufacturer.

The court distinguished horizontal privity, which its earlier order had found based on a family exception, from vertical privity, which concerns the parties in the chain of sale. Because Sensney’s mother-in-law bought the Glamper from an online retailer, the complaint did not show vertical privity between Sensney and MGA. The court rejected Sensney’s argument that he could proceed as a third-party beneficiary of the sale. It also did not reach MGA’s separate argument that the complaint failed to adequately allege that the Glamper was unmerchantable.

Express-Warranty Claim

The court held that the express-warranty claim also failed. Under California law, an express warranty requires a specific affirmation of fact or promise that became part of the basis of the bargain. Sensney relied on the words “Age 3+,” which the complaint alleged appeared on the Glamper’s outside packaging and in its manual.

The court found those words too vague to constitute a specific, actionable warranty. It further held that Sensney had not alleged the required basis-of-the-bargain element. Because Sensney was not in privity with MGA, the court concluded that California law required him to allege actual reliance on the manufacturer’s statement. The complaint did not allege that he actually relied on “Age 3+.”

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Sensney requested permission to amend again. He proposed adding facts to show that he was a third-party beneficiary and, alternatively, asserting a claim under the Song-Beverly Act. The court found that additional third-party-beneficiary allegations would not cure the implied-warranty defect and that Sensney identified no additional facts that would cure the express-warranty defect. The court also denied permission to add a Song-Beverly Act claim because Sensney had not shown the diligence required to modify the case schedule.

The court granted MGA’s motion to dismiss, denied the request for leave to amend, and dismissed the action with prejudice. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of MGA and close the file.