Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:16-cv-01220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
In Hudock v. LG Electronics, Judge Tunheim granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated class-action complaint.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ proposed class-action claims against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and the Best Buy defendants, including claims by Breann Hudock, Villa Lara, and Eugene Mannacio.
What happened
Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. concerns allegations that LG televisions sold through LG and Best Buy were advertised with refresh rates higher than their actual refresh rates. The plaintiffs brought claims under several state consumer-protection laws, warranty laws, and contract law in proposed class actions that were later consolidated.
The court denied defendants’ arguments concerning standing and rejected their renewed challenges to the New Jersey consumer-fraud claims, Villa Lara’s California claims, and some breach-of-contract allegations. It granted the motion as to claims seeking remedies beyond injunctions under Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the breach-of-contract claim against LG, Illinois consumer-fraud claims, and Breann Hudock’s California claims under the California Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and entered the specific dismissals described above. Judge Tunheim signed the order on July 17, 2019.
The detailed version
- Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. · No. 0:16-cv-01220
- John Tunheim
- July 17, 2019
Background
The case involved alleged purchases of LG televisions advertised with refresh rates higher than their actual refresh rates. The consolidated proposed class action combined the earlier Hudock and Villa Lara cases. The defendants were LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and BestBuy.com, LLC.
The complaint alleged violations of Minnesota, New Jersey, California, and Illinois consumer-protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The consolidated complaint added Scott Poppen and Eugene Mannacio as proposed class representatives and added claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. After the motion was filed, the court dismissed Benjamin Hudock, Gerald DeLoss, Scott Poppen, and Piakanae Carpenter based on the parties’ stipulations. The court stated that the later amended consolidated complaint added Piakanae Carpenter and Brian Fleishman, but that the claims at issue in this motion did not materially change.
Standing
Defendants renewed their arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing, meaning they could not pursue the asserted claims in federal court. The court had previously deferred those issues until class certification because class certification was logically related to whether the plaintiffs could pursue claims under laws of states where no currently named plaintiff resided and whether their injuries were sufficiently similar. Finding no new basis for changing its earlier ruling, the court denied the motion to dismiss on standing grounds.
Failure to State a Claim
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim legally plausible. The court addressed the following issues:
- Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act: The court granted the motion to the extent the plaintiffs sought any remedy beyond injunctive relief. The court had reached the same conclusion in its earlier orders. - Breach of contract against LG: The court granted the motion because the plaintiffs agreed that LG had not made an offer for sale and therefore could not be liable on the alleged contract claim. - Breach of contract involving Mannacio and Breann Hudock: Defendants argued that the complaint did not adequately allege that Best Buy made an offer. The court denied the motion, concluding that the complaint, read as a whole, alleged that both plaintiffs reviewed television advertisements or specifications on Best Buy’s website or in stores. - New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act: The court denied the motion. Defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged an ascertainable loss, meaning a measurable loss, but the court relied on its prior rulings that the alleged losses and proposed expert analyses were plausibly pleaded. - Illinois Consumer Fraud Act: The court granted the motion because no Illinois plaintiffs remained. - Breann Hudock’s California claims: The court granted the motion as to her claims under the California Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law because the parties agreed she could not assert California claims. - Villa Lara’s California claims: The court denied the motion. Defendants argued that the claims were filed too late, but the court followed its prior ruling that Villa Lara’s California Legal Remedies Act claim was subject to equitable tolling under California law. - Additional previously rejected arguments: The court denied the motion on the other arguments defendants had renewed to preserve their appellate rights, consistent with its prior orders.
Disposition
The court ordered that defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class-action complaint was granted in part and denied in part. It dismissed the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim to the extent it sought relief beyond injunctive relief, dismissed the breach-of-contract claim against LG, dismissed Breann Hudock’s California Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law claims, and dismissed the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claims. The order was signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.