## Facts

- Petzl America, Inc. manufactured and sold the “Shunt,” a rope-grabbing device used in climbing and rope-access applications.
- Craig Faulhaber, a Colorado climber, alleged that the Shunt was commonly used in the climbing community for self-belaying during top-rope solo climbing and that some retail and online materials presented it as suitable for that use.
- Faulhaber alleged that Petzl had information, including testing and safety reports, identifying problems when the Shunt was used for self-belaying on a single rope, including slippage or failure under certain conditions.
- Although Petzl had advertised the Shunt for two-person belaying at the time, Faulhaber alleged that a Petzl representative recommended the Shunt for top-rope solo climbing.
- Relying on that recommendation (and other materials he reviewed), Faulhaber purchased the Shunt specifically to use it for top-rope solo/self-belayed climbing.
- In September 2021, Faulhaber alleged that the Shunt failed to arrest his fall while he was climbing alone on top rope, causing him to fall roughly 35 feet and suffer serious injuries.
- Faulhaber sued Petzl in the District of Colorado and filed an amended complaint asserting multiple Colorado-law theories (including product-liability and warranty claims) and a putative nationwide class of Shunt purchasers.
- Petzl moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and separately moved to strike the class allegations under Rule 12(f) and/or Rule 23(d).

## Issues

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim under Colorado’s UCC based on allegations that Petzl (through a representative) knew Faulhaber’s intended use (top-rope solo/self-belaying) and that Faulhaber relied on Petzl’s skill or judgment.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated other product-liability and warranty claims under Colorado law based on allegations that Petzl knew of safety limits associated with self-belayed/single-rope use and failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
3. Whether the court should strike the putative nationwide class allegations at the pleading stage because individualized questions (use, exposure to statements, reliance, causation, and damages) and multi-state law differences would defeat Rule 23.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part Petzl’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing some claims while allowing others to proceed based on the sufficiency of the pleaded factual allegations.
- The court denied dismissal of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim, finding the allegations sufficient at the pleading stage that (a) Faulhaber had a particular purpose distinct from ordinary use, (b) Petzl had reason to know that purpose through the alleged representative recommendation, and (c) Faulhaber relied on Petzl in selecting the Shunt for that purpose.
- The court granted Petzl’s motion to strike the class allegations, concluding that defects in the proposed nationwide class were apparent from the face of the pleadings, including individualized issues and state-law variation affecting Rule 23 requirements.
- The court allowed Faulhaber leave to amend within 14 days.

## Legal Principles

- To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must include enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief; courts accept well-pleaded facts as true and disregard bare legal conclusions.
- Under Colorado’s version of U.C.C. § 2-315 (implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose), a plaintiff must plausibly allege: (1) a particular purpose for the goods (beyond ordinary use), (2) the seller’s reason to know of that purpose, and (3) the buyer’s reliance on the seller’s skill or judgment to select suitable goods.
- A court may strike class allegations at the pleading stage when it is clear from the complaint that the proposed class cannot meet Rule 23 requirements, including commonality, typicality, and (for damages classes) predominance and manageability.
- Nationwide class claims involving product marketing and use may present individualized issues—such as what information each purchaser saw, how the product was used, whether warnings were received and read, and how the alleged defect caused harm—as well as choice-of-law complications from differing state substantive law.

## Conclusion

In Faulhaber v. Petzl America, Inc., the District of Colorado held that Faulhaber’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to proceed on an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose theory tied to an alleged recommendation for top-rope solo/self-belayed use of the Shunt, while dismissing other claims in part, striking the nationwide class allegations due to individualized questions and state-law variation, and granting leave to amend.


Faulhaber v. Petzl America, Inc., 2023 WL 1993612 (2023)