Wedra v. Cree, Inc.

Background

Stephanie Wedra brought a proposed class action against Cree, Inc. under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 and for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. She alleged that she bought Cree 60-watt and 75-watt LED bulbs from a Home Depot store in Westchester County, relying on claims that the bulbs would last more than 22 or 45 years, produce substantial savings, and perform better than less expensive bulbs. She alleged that the bulbs burned out within six months. The opinion notes that the court had dismissed Wedra’s other claims in an earlier order.

The pending matters were Wedra’s motion for class certification, Cree’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Cree’s two motions to strike expert reports, and Wedra’s request to extend the class-certification briefing schedule.

Standing and jurisdiction

Cree argued that Wedra lacked Article III standing, meaning the required injury and connection to the dispute that allow a person to sue in federal court. Cree relied on testimony that Wedra bought the bulbs using her mother’s money for her mother’s use in her mother’s home. Cree argued that Wedra’s mother, rather than Wedra, would have received any expected energy savings.

The court denied Cree’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Wedra argued that she was injured because she paid a higher price for the bulbs based on expectations of longer life and greater energy savings. At her deposition, she testified that she used her own money. Although she said her mother sometimes gave her cash, she did not testify that her mother gave her money specifically to buy these bulbs or that she used money her mother had given her for that purchase. The court concluded that Wedra met her burden to establish Article III standing.

Scheduling and other motions

The court granted Wedra’s request to extend the briefing schedules. Cree consented to the proposed dates, and the court stated that it would separately issue a Third Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

Because the briefing schedule had become lengthy, the court terminated without prejudice to refiling Wedra’s motion for class certification and Cree’s two motions to strike. The parties were required to serve one another with the papers supporting those three motions and any contemplated motion by Wedra to strike, but were ordered not to file the papers on their individual due dates. Instead, they were directed to file all of the papers on October 1, 2021, or when the motions were fully briefed, whichever was later. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the listed motions.