Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04271/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04271-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carrier Corporation
Defendant
Emrah Sumer
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EMRAH SUMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARRIER CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04271-VC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 19

1. Sumer's claim for breach of express warranty fails because the allegations in the First 

Amended Complaint ("FAC") show that Carrier more than fulfilled its obligations under the 

warranty. Carrier's evaporator coils were covered by a five-year warranty which provided that if a 

coil failed within five years from the date of original installation, Carrier would provide a new or 

remanufactured part to replace the failed defective part. The warranty stated that it did not cover 

any labor costs for diagnosis, repair, or replacement.1 Sumer purchased an air-conditioning unit in 

January 2009. A few months later, the unit stopped blowing cold air. The seller, Atlas Heating 

and Air Conditioning, identified a leak in the evaporator coil and replaced the coil with another 

copper coil at no cost to Sumer. FAC ¶¶ 59–60. After the coil was replaced, the unit functioned 

normally until April 2014. Atlas again identified a leaking coil. Sumer contacted Carrier, and

even though more than five years had passed since the original installation of Sumer's airconditioning unit, Carrier provided a new aluminum coil at no charge. 

Sumer argues that Carrier's limited warranty is unenforceable because the warranty: (i) 

fails its essential purpose; and (ii) is unconscionable. "The California Commercial Code provides 

that if a limited warranty 'fails of its essential purpose,' the buyer is entitled to the full range of 

 

1

The court grants Carrier's request for judicial notice of the warranty. See Hoey v. Sony Elecs.

Inc., 515 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

Case 3:14-cv-04271-VC Document 27 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 5
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

UCC remedies." Philippine Nat. Oil Co. v. Garrett Corp., 724 F.2d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(quoting Cal. Com. Code § 2719(2)). But under California law, "a repair or replace remedy fails 

of its essential purpose only if repeated repair attempts are unsuccessful within a reasonable time." 

Id. at 808 (emphasis omitted). Here, when the coil failed during the warranty period, Carrier 

replaced the coil at no charge to Sumer. This replacement coil functioned for nearly five years. 

And the limited warranty is not unconscionable; its terms are not so harsh as to "shock the 

conscience." See Aron v. U-Haul Co. of Cal., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 555, 564 (Ct. App. 2006).

2. Sumer's claim for breach of implied warranty is time barred. This claim is subject to a 

four-year statute of limitations. Even if Carrier's limited warranty "extends to future performance

of the goods," meaning that Sumer's "cause of action accrue[d] when the breach [wa]s or should 

have been discovered," Cal. Com. Code § 2725(2), the only possible point when Sumer's cause of 

action could have accrued was the failure of the first coil in early 2009. Moreover, as with 

Sumer's express warranty claims, the implied warranty claim fails on the merits because when the 

first coil failed during the one-year implied warranty period, Carrier replaced the leaking coil at no 

cost to Sumer.

Sumer's claims for breach of express and implied warranty are dismissed with prejudice, 

because the allegations in the FAC show that these claims do not exist. And because Sumer's 

claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on the allegation 

that Carrier breached its express warranty, see Docket No. 23, p.14, this claim is also dismissed 

with prejudice. 

3. Sumer's fraud-based claims under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act

("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and False Advertising Law ("FAL") fail to state a 

claim for affirmative misrepresentation. See Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 950 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 

1132 (N.D. Cal. 2013), (analyzing a plaintiff's fraud-based CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims 

together). Carrier's general statements about the reliability and quality of its evaporator coils are 

non-actionable puffery. See Tietsworth v. Sears, 720 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 

(dismissing UCL and CLRA claims because the defendant's representations that the product in 

question was "designed, manufactured and tested for years of dependable operations" were "mere 

Case 3:14-cv-04271-VC Document 27 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

puffery" and therefore "as a matter of law could not deceive a reasonable consumer"). And to the 

extent Sumer alleges a claim for fraud based on Carrier's affirmative representations in the various 

brochures attached as exhibits to the FAC, this claim fails to satisfy Rule 9b's particularity 

requirement. 

Sumer also alleges that Carrier fraudulently failed to disclose the likelihood of coil leaks

due to formicary corrosion. To state a claim for fraud by omission, a plaintiff must allege a duty 

to disclose the omitted facts. See Rasmussen v. Apple Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 1027, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 

2014). Though it is not entirely clear from the FAC, Sumer appears to allege that Carrier owed a 

duty to disclose the risk of formicary corrosion in copper coils because Carrier made "partial 

representations but also suppresse[d] some material facts" about its evaporator coils. See 

LiMandri v. Judkins, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 539, 543 (1997). But this allegation is belied by a Carrier 

brochure that Sumer attached as an exhibit to the FAC.2 In the context of offering to prospective 

buyers corrosion-resistant tin-plated copper evaporator coils (as a premium option), the brochure 

stated:

[O]ne issue that has become an across-the-board concern for all is indoor coil

failures due to corrosion. While the overall incidence of corrosion-based indoor 

coil failures is low nationwide, it has become a bigger concern in some 

geographic areas. And if your home is in one of those affected areas, it's certainly 

a major concern for you. After extensive field and laboratory testing and 

research, Carrier has identified the problem and was the first to offer a solution –

ArmorCoatTM tin plating.

Why is Coil Corrosion a Bigger Issue Now?

Coil corrosion seems to be more prevalent in high humidity regions. However, 

our research revealed that indoor environments are a much bigger factor than

geographical or climate-based issues. Pollutants in the home are a primary 

contributor to coil corrosion and subsequent failure. Because today's homes are 

better sealed and insulated to conserve energy, they are also better at trapping 

these corrosive agents.

FAC, Ex. C (bolded text in original).

 

2

Though it is not immediately apparent from the FAC that Sumer saw this brochure before or 

during his initial purchase, the FAC describes Carrier's representations in the brochure, FAC ¶ 44, 

then alleges that Sumer relied on Carrier's "above-described" "material misrepresentations and 

omissions." FAC ¶¶ 104–06. 

Case 3:14-cv-04271-VC Document 27 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Given this disclosure, the allegations in the FAC do not state a plausible claim that Carrier 

failed to disclose concerns about formicary corrosion. Nor does the FAC plausibly allege that 

Carrier was aware of material facts about the dangers of formicary corrosion beyond those

disclosed in the brochure. Sumer alleges that the ArmorCoat brochure failed to reveal "the high 

incidence of formicary corrosion in copper coils." FAC ¶ 44. But the FAC provides no facts 

suggesting that Carrier was aware that coil corrosion was a more serious problem than it disclosed 

in the brochure. Indeed, to the extent that the FAC alleges that Carrier was aware of a significant 

risk of premature failure of copper coils as a result of formicary corrosion, the disclosure in the 

ArmorCoat brochure appears to correspond almost entirely with the FAC's allegations about

Carrier's knowledge of that risk. See FAC ¶ 45 & Exs. A, C. Accordingly, the complaint fails to 

state a claim for fraud by omission under the CLRA, UCL, or FAL.

At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Sumer's counsel represented that, if given leave to 

amend the complaint, Sumer could allege additional facts showing that Carrier was aware that the 

susceptibility of copper coils to formicary corrosion was a more significant problem than Carrier

disclosed in its ArmorCoat brochure, and thus that the brochure was insufficient to satisfy Carrier's 

duty to disclose. For this reason, the dismissal of Sumer's statutory fraud claims is without 

prejudice. It bears noting, however, that Sumer will not be permitted to move forward on a claim 

that contains allegations contrary to those found in the complaints he has already filed. Should 

Sumer wish to file an amended complaint, he must do so within 21 days of this order or the 

dismissal will be with prejudice.

4. Sumer's common law fraud claim fails for the same reasons as his statutory fraud 

claims, see Elias, 950 F. Supp. 2d at 1131–35, and is likewise dismissed without prejudice.

5. Sumer's claim for declaratory relief is intertwined with the merits of his substantive 

claims and is dismissed for the reasons stated above. Similarly, Sumer's claim for "unjust 

enrichment" is not a stand-alone cause of action, and is dismissed because Sumer fails to state a 

predicate claim warranting such relief. See Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 913, 932–33

(N.D. Cal. 2012) ("Under California law, restitution and unjust enrichment are generally thought 

Case 3:14-cv-04271-VC Document 27 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

of not as causes of action, but 'general principle[s] underlying various legal doctrines and 

remedies.'" (quoting McBride v. Boughton, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 115, 121 (Ct. App. 2004)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04271-VC Document 27 Filed 02/20/15 Page 5 of 5