The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
On June 5, 2012, Defendants Apex Tool Group ("Apex") and Sears, Robuck and Co. ("Sears") filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jose Angel Cruz's first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on July 9, 2012. (Doc. No. 15.) Defendants filed their reply on July 16, 2012. (Doc. No. 16.) The Court, pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), determines that these matters are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, submits the motion on the parties' papers, and vacates the hearing scheduled for July 23, 2012. For the following reasons, the Court the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's causes of action for negligence, strict liability under a design defects theory, strict liability under a manufacturing defects theory, strict liability under a failure to warn theory, and breach of implied warranty. The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action for breach of express warranty.
On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Sears, Sears' Craftsman Tools, Danaher Tool Company, Apex, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff alleges that when he was changing his tires with a Sears craftsman tool, the socket of the tool fractured into two pieces, with one piece striking Plaintiff in the face and causing injury. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff alleges causes of action for negligence, strict products liability, and breaches of implied and express warranties. (Doc. No. 12.)
I. Motion To Dismiss-Legal Standard
A motion to dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Navarro v. Black, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading stating a claim for relief contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The function of this pleading requirement is to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. A complaint does not "suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, 235-36 (3d ed. 2004)). "All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. However, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
"The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages." Melton v. Boustred, 183 Cal. App. 4th 521, 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action for negligence. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Danaher Tool Company, later purchased by Defendant Apex Tool Group, designed and manufactured the tool. (Doc. No. 12 ¶¶ 12-13.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Danaher Tool Company and Apex sold the wrench to Defendants Sears and Sears' Craftsman Tools, subsequently distributing and selling the tools to the public. (Doc. No. 12 ¶¶ 14-15.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that the tool fractured into two pieces during normal use. (Doc. No. 12.) In doing so, Plaintiff pleads that Defendants breached the duty they owed to Plaintiff through the tool's negligent construction. (Doc. No. 12.) The Court concludes that Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to place Defendants on notice of the claims against them. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for negligence and denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's negligence cause of action.
III. Strict Products Liability
"The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury." Cnty of Santa Clara v. Atl. Richfield Co., 137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 318 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). To succeed, a plaintiff must show "(1) the product is placed in the market, (2) there is knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect, (3) the product proves to be defective, and (4) the defect causes injury." Nelson v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. App. 4th 689 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Scott v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc., 115 Cal. App. 4th 404, 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)).
A product is defective in design if either (1) the product has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) if, in light of relevant factors, the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design. Barker v. Lull Eng'g Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 426-27 (1978); Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co., 140 Cal. App. 4th 1202, 1208 (2006); Soule v. Gen. Motors Corp., 8 Cal. 4th 548, 566-67 (1994). Plaintiff alleges that the socket wrench's defective nature caused his injuries. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff alleges that when using the wrench while changing a tire, a foreseeable use, the wrench snapped in half and hit him in the face. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff alleges that the wrench therefore did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff further alleges that the wrench was defective in design, and the defect was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. (Doc. No. 12.) Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has ...