ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFEDANT BEST BUY STORES, L.P.'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS IN PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
GARIAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. ("Best Buy") moves in this putative class action for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of the California Consumer Legal Remedy Act ("CLRA") claim alleged against it in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The following allegations in Plaintiff's TAC concern the motion. "In or about January 2010," after looking at the product tags for various laptops, Plaintiff purchased a Toshiba Satellite L505 laptop from a Best Buy retail store in Folsom, California. (TAC ¶¶ 10-12, ECF No. 68.) "In Best Buy's retail stores, each [l]aptop computer . . . has a Best Buy `product tag'" that "lists the [l]aptop's battery life as being `up to' a specified number of hours." (
Plaintiff "decided to purchase the Toshiba Satellite L505 [laptop] based substantially on his reliance on the representation that the battery life for the model was `up to 3.32 hours.'" (
"The `up to' battery life representations on Best Buy's product tags are not limited to [l]aptops manufactured by Toshiba; rather such representations are common and identical regardless of the manufacturer of the [l]aptop." (
1. CLRA Statute of Limitations
Best Buy argues Plaintiff's CLRA claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Specifically, Best Buy challenges the credibility of Plaintiff's Doe allegations pertinent to California's relation back doctrine for fictitiously named Defendants in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Best Buy Stores made the same argument in its prior Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which was rejected in an order filed on February 4, 2013. (
Best Buy also states in its reply brief: "To the extent the Court deems any of the grounds of the present motion to be duplicative of those asserted before, Best Buy [Stores] requests that the Court treat the motion as one for clarification or reconsideration." (Def.'s Reply 3:17-19, ECF No. 79.) However, "[t]he district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief."
2. CLRA Notice Requirement
Best Buy argues the damages portion of Plaintiff's CLRA claim concerning laptops he did not purchase should be dismissed since "the only make and model of laptop identified in the [CLRA] notice is the Toshiba Satellite laptop that Plaintiff actually purchased." (Def.'s Mot. 9:27-28.) Plaintiff counters: "Defendant's argument is clearly one of form over substance" since "[o]n numerous occasions throughout this case, Defendant has been fully able to fully articulate its understanding as to the scope of the putative Class." (Pl.'s Opp'n 14:13-16, ECF No. 77.)
Concerning the referenced notice, the CLRA prescribes:
Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a) (emphasis added).
"The CLRA's notice requirement is not jurisdictional, but compliance with the requirement is necessary to state a claim" for damages.
Plaintiff's CLRA notice only describes an alleged misstatement of the expected battery life of the Toshiba Satellite L505 laptop he purchased. (
For the stated reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The damages component of Plaintiff's CLRA claim is DISMISSED for laptops Plaintiff did not purchase. The remainder of the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff is granted thirty-five (35) days from the date on which this order is filed to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies in the dismissed damages component of the CLRA claim for laptops Plaintiff did not purchase. Plaintiff is notified that failure to file an amended complaint within the prescribed time period could result in dismissal of the described component of the CLRA claim with prejudice under Rule 41(b).