Opinion ID: 933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Breach of Express Warranty Claim

Text: We exercise plenary review over a district court’s dismissal of a claim pursuant to 5 12(b)(6). Grammar v. John J. Kane Regional Centers–Glen Hazel, 570 F.3d 520, 523 (3d Cir. 2009). To establish a breach of express warranty claim under New Jersey law 2 , a plaintiff “must allege (1) a contract between the parties; (2) a breach of that contract; (3) damages flowing therefrom; and (4) that the party stating the claim performed its own contractual obligations.” Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 203 (3d Cir. 2007). Cooper’s claim fails as a matter of law because he has failed to properly allege a breach of contract. The contract upon which Cooper’s claim is premised—i.e., the Warranty3 —states, in pertinent part: This SAMSUNG brand product, as supplied and distributed by SAMSUNG and delivered new, in the original carton to the original consumer purchaser, is warranted by SAMSUNG against manufacturing defects in materials and workmanship for a limited warranty period of: [...] LCD TV: One (1) Year Parts and Labor, including Display Panels. [...] This limited warranty begins on the original date of purchase, and is valid only on products purchased and used in the United States. To receive warranty service, the purchaser must contact SAMSUNG for a problem 2 We generally apply the law of the forum state—here, New Jersey—to state law claims unless there is an objection by any of the parties, and since there is no objection by either party, we apply New Jersey law to Cooper’s breach of express warranty claim. 3 In general, when ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6), a court may only consider the contents of the pleadings. Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting 62 Fed. Proc. L.Ed. §62:508). However, “[d]ocuments that the defendant attaches to the motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to the claim....” Id. In this case, while Cooper’s complaint did not contain the Warranty, it was clearly referenced in the context of Cooper’s breach of express warranty claim, and was central to that claim. Thus, since Samsung attached the Warranty to its motion to dismiss, we can properly consider the Warranty in the course of our 12(b)(6) analysis. 6 determination and service procedures. J.A. 244 (emphases added). Since, in the instant case, it is undisputed that Cooper failed to provide the requisite notice to Samsung within one year of the date of his purchase of the 1080p television, Samsung is not obligated to perform under the Warranty. Moreover, the plain language of the Warranty covers only “manufacturing defects in materials and workmanship encountered in normal . . . noncommercial use of this product.” Cooper does not allege a manufacturing defect; indeed, he agrees his TV was manufactured as designed. His complaint is that the design deviated from Samsung’s advertisements and packaging. This is not a “manufacturing defect” that would be covered by this warranty. Given the foregoing, Cooper cannot prevail under the Warranty.