Drake v. Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc.

Background

Charles Drake brought the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of consumers who purchased Haier’s gas stoves, ovens, and ranges. Haier moved to dismiss the complaint. The court previously granted in part and denied in part that motion. It dismissed with prejudice Drake’s claims for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Count 1), False Advertising Law (Count 2), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Count 3), and fraudulent omission (Count 7).

Drake received permission to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his California statutory consumer-protection claims. He relied on the third ground under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b): an alleged failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.

Arguments and analysis

Drake argued that the court had failed to consider his arguments and Haier’s statement during the earlier hearing that Proposition 65 did not bar claims based solely on nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is not listed as a Proposition 65 chemical.

The court rejected the argument. In its earlier order, the court had found that Drake’s fraud-based claims were entirely derivative of a Proposition 65 violation and were barred because he had not provided the required pre-suit notice. The court explained that a claim is barred when it is completely dependent on establishing a Proposition 65 violation, but a claim independent of Proposition 65 is not barred for lack of notice.

The court concluded that Drake’s complaint did not limit his claims to nitrogen dioxide. Instead, the complaint combined nitrogen dioxide with other pollutants and alleged health risks involving chemicals listed under Proposition 65. Drake alleged that Haier failed to disclose this combined alleged defect. The court said Drake could not recast that broader Proposition 65-based claim as claims involving only nitrogen dioxide.

The court also rejected Drake’s argument that the claims were based on affirmative misrepresentations as well as a failure to warn. The earlier order had already found that Drake had not adequately pleaded a duty to disclose the emissions, had not identified an affirmative misrepresentation, and had not alleged facts showing that Haier knew of the alleged defect. The court determined that Drake had not shown that it previously failed to consider any material facts or dispositive legal arguments.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Drake’s motion for reconsideration. The court stated that Drake may file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of the order.