Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Background

Elizabeth Perlin bought Pottery Barn-branded PB Classic 400-Thread-Count Sheet Sets and extra pillowcases from Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., and Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc. on January 19 and January 28, 2011. The sheets ripped shortly after she began using them. Perlin alleged that Williams-Sonoma’s advertisements misrepresented the sheets’ thread count, claiming 400 threads when, under some methods of calculation, the count was allegedly closer to 200.

Perlin asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. The applicable filing deadlines were three years for the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and unjust-enrichment claims, and four years for the Unfair Competition Law claim. Perlin was added as a named plaintiff in the eighth amended complaint filed on June 5, 2020.

Motion and Legal Standard

Williams-Sonoma moved for summary judgment, arguing that all of Perlin’s claims were time-barred. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Perlin relied on two possible exceptions to the filing deadlines: the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment. The discovery rule can delay the start of the filing period until a plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should discover, the alleged wrongdoing. Fraudulent concealment can extend the period when a defendant takes affirmative steps to mislead the plaintiff and prevent a timely lawsuit.

Discovery Rule

The court concluded that Williams-Sonoma had shown that Perlin’s claims were facially filed too late, but that genuine disputes of material fact remained about whether the discovery rule applied.

Williams-Sonoma argued that Perlin should have suspected wrongdoing in 2011 because both sets of sheets ripped shortly after use. Perlin argued that the rips did not put her on notice that Williams-Sonoma had allegedly misrepresented the thread count. She maintained that her injury concerned the alleged false advertising, not merely the sheets’ lack of durability.

The court found evidence supporting both sides. Perlin testified that she compared the sheets with lower-thread-count sheets and concluded that the lower-thread-count sheets were more durable. She also presented an expert declaration stating that an average consumer could not determine thread count by sight or feel. Williams-Sonoma presented evidence that Perlin had connected thread count with durability and had complained in 2014 that the sheets should have lasted longer based on their advertised thread count.

Because the evidence did not establish only one reasonable conclusion about when Perlin knew or should have known of the alleged thread-count misrepresentation, the court found a factual dispute about when she had notice of her claims. The court also found a related factual dispute about whether she conducted a reasonable investigation after becoming aware of the alleged injury. It therefore held that the discovery rule may postpone the start of the filing period.

Fraudulent Concealment

The court rejected Perlin’s fraudulent-concealment theory. Perlin identified three alleged affirmative acts: Williams-Sonoma’s advertising and packaging, its continued advertising and sale of the bedding, and a 2014 customer-service statement that there was “nothing wrong” with the sheets.

The court held that the advertising and continued sale of the bedding were the alleged wrongdoing underlying Perlin’s claims, not separate acts taken to prevent her from suing. Those allegations therefore did not satisfy the requirement of affirmative conduct beyond the underlying misconduct.

The court also held that Perlin had not shown that the 2014 customer-service statement prevented her from filing suit on time. Perlin testified that no one prevented her from investigating why the sheets ripped. The court therefore concluded that fraudulent concealment did not apply.

Sealing Request

Perlin provisionally filed portions of her opposition brief and two supporting exhibits under seal because Williams-Sonoma had designated information in them as confidential. Williams-Sonoma did not file the required statement or declaration supporting continued sealing within seven days.

The court stated that it was skeptical that the information warranted sealing but gave Williams-Sonoma an opportunity to respond by July 27, 2022. If no response was received, the clerk would be directed to unseal the documents filed at Docket Nos. 271-3, 271-4, and 271-5.

Disposition

Judge William Orrick denied Williams-Sonoma’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Perlin’s claims were time-barred. The court found that Perlin had not shown that fraudulent concealment applied, but had shown genuine disputes of material fact about whether the discovery rule could make her claims timely. The court also directed Williams-Sonoma to respond to Perlin’s administrative motion to seal by July 27, 2022, with unsealing to follow if no response was received.