Opinion ID: 622977
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Causal Connection Between the Alleged Defect and the Alleged Safety Hazard

Text: Plaintiffs have not alleged a sufficient nexus between the alleged design defect and the alleged safety hazard. In Tietsworth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co ., No. 5:09-CV-00288 JF (HRL), 2009 WL 3320486, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98532 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 13, 2009), plaintiffs asserted that Sears' washing machines contained a defect in their Electronic Control Boards that caused the machines to stop mid-cycle and display a variety of error codes. In their complaint, plaintiffs also alleged that the defective control boards led to the machines' spinning out of control and exploding. Id. at -5, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98532, at -15. The court found that there was no obvious nexus ... between this allegation and the specific defect in the Electronic Control Board asserted continuously throughout the [complaint]. [3] Id. at , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98532, at . In the case at bar, the complaint goes into some detail as to how normal use of the Laptops ( i.e., turning them on and off, plugging in an a/c adapter) causes the connection between the power jack and the motherboard to weaken, resulting in a loss of power to the Laptops. The complaint, however, does not allege how the weakening or loss of the connection between the power jack and the motherboard causes the Laptops to ignite. See Rhynes v. Stryker Corp., No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095, at  (N.D.Cal. May 31, 2011) (dismissing plaintiff's strict liability and negligence claims under Iqbal where plaintiff did not allege facts indicating how the [design defect] has caused her harm). The complaint merely states that when Kruschen plugged in his computer and turned it on, the Laptop emitted heavy smoke, flames, and sparks from the left side of the Laptop (close to the power jack). The complaint is silent on whether the power jack's becoming disconnected in any way led to Kruschen's Laptop's catching fire. Some of the customer complaints do minimally allege such a causal connection, such as [a]t the time when the power jack completely failed, smoke began to flow rapidly from inside the computer. These statements, however, are not accompanied by any supporting factual basis. Plaintiffs simultaneously allege that the design defect cuts off power from the Laptops and that the Laptops can ignite into flames through normal use. But it is difficult to conceive (and the complaint does not explain) how the Laptops could ignite if they are unable to receive an electrical charge. [4] See In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 790 F.Supp.2d 1152 (C.D.Cal.2011) (holding that dismissal is appropriate where plaintiffs' allegations about the alleged defect are implausible). The present case is therefore distinguishable from those cases surviving a motion to dismiss where the alleged design defect could conceivably lead to a safety hazard. See, e.g., Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 796 F.Supp.2d 1220 (C.D.Cal.2011) (holding that vehicle's water-leak defect could cause sudden and unexpected engine failure and result in personal injury or death); Marsikian v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. CV 08-04876 AHM (JTLx), 2009 WL 8379784, at -7, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117012, at -17 (C.D.Cal. May 4, 2009) (denying motion to dismiss a CLRA claim where plaintiff alleged that air intake systems were susceptible to clogging and the defect could lead to substantial electrical failure because it is not implausible that the [clogging] would cause `catastrophic engine and electrical system failure' while the car is on the road). As Plaintiffs do not plead any facts indicating how the alleged design defect, i.e., the loss of the connection between the power jack and the motherboard, causes the Laptops to burst into flames, the District Court did not err in finding that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of an unreasonable safety defect.