## Facts

- Laury Smith purchased an LG front-loading washing machine advertised as “high efficiency” with an “extra-high” spin-speed feature.
- Smith alleged the washer made noise, shook, and moved immediately after purchase, but she did not seek a remedy from LG at that time.
- More than a year later, LG issued a safety recall for the washer model and performed a recall repair at Smith’s home.
- After the recall repair, Smith alleged the washer could no longer spin at the extra-high setting and could no longer wash certain heavier or bulkier materials it previously could.
- Smith sued LG asserting implied-warranty claims under the UCC as adopted in California.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that a recall repair permanently reduced an advertised performance feature plausibly stated a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
2. Whether Smith plausibly alleged an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose based on a purpose distinct from ordinary household laundry use and reliance on LG’s skill or judgment.
3. Whether the timing and post-sale nature of the recall repair prevented Smith from stating implied-warranty claims tied to the washer’s reduced capabilities after the repair.

## Decision

- On LG’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court denied dismissal of the implied warranty of merchantability claim.
- The court dismissed or refused to sustain the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim as inadequately pleaded.
- The court treated the alleged post-recall performance downgrade as potentially actionable at the pleadings stage where it purportedly eliminated an advertised capability.

## Legal Principles

- Implied warranty of merchantability requires goods to be fit for their ordinary purposes and to conform to promises or affirmations of fact on labeling or advertising.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, a plaintiff states a merchantability claim by plausibly alleging that the product, as provided or effectively altered through the seller/manufacturer’s actions, no longer meets ordinary consumer expectations created by the seller’s own representations.
- An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose requires a buyer’s particular purpose that differs from ordinary use, the seller’s reason to know of that purpose, and the buyer’s reliance on the seller’s skill or judgment; ordinary household use generally does not satisfy this requirement without additional, specific reliance allegations.
- A manufacturer’s recall repair that allegedly and permanently disables a material advertised feature may support a merchantability theory based on loss of the benefit of the bargain.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Smith to proceed on an implied merchantability theory that the recall repair removed an advertised extra-high spin capability and thereby rendered the washer nonconforming to ordinary expectations, while rejecting the fitness-for-particular-purpose theory for failure to allege a distinct purpose and reliance beyond ordinary consumer use.


Smith v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc., 83 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 92 (N.D. Cal. 2014)