Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01257/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01257-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SETH LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01257-JD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In July 2014, defendants Graco Children’s Products Inc. and Newell Rubbermaid Inc. 

(collectively “Graco”) asked the Court to dismiss this action on the grounds that a product recall of 

their defective car seats for children mooted all claims for damages and injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 

104. In seeking dismissal, Graco represented to the Court that it offered full purchase price 

refunds to affected customers “without delay, without uncertainty” in the recall. Id. at 11

(emphasis in original). In fact, Graco’s central argument to the Court in its papers and at the 

hearing was that the recall made full refunds available as the first-line remedy for the defective car 

seats. 

But the declaration and other evidence Graco proffered failed to support this argument. As 

the Court stated in the order denying dismissal, “[n]one of the recall documents say anything at all 

about a refund of any sort, let alone offer a full refund as a standard part of the recall program.” Dkt. 

No. 120 at 6. And plaintiff has now filed a motion for class certification that contains excerpts of a 

deposition of a Graco employee that casts even more doubt on the credibility of Graco’s full refund 

story. Dkt. No. 129. 

The Court has serious concerns that Graco’s refund argument was not based on solid evidence 

and was made to mislead it. Consequently, Graco and its attorneys at the Schiff Hardin law firm are 

Case 3:13-cv-01257-JD Document 130 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ordered to appear at a hearing on July 27, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to show cause why sanctions should not 

be imposed. The attorney who signed the motion to dismiss brief must be present and prepared to state

in detail the facts he relied on for the refund claim at the time the motion to dismiss was filed in July 

2014. The attorney who argued the motion at the hearing is also required to be present. If the Court 

finds culpable conduct, sanctions may be monetary or evidentiary, and might include a referral to 

attorney disciplinary proceedings. 

If Graco wishes to submit a written proffer, it must do so no later than July 20, 2015. The 

Court does not require a response from plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01257-JD Document 130 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2