United States District Court, D. Minnesota
BREANN HUDOCK, IVAN VILLA LARA, EUGENE MANNACIO, and BRIAN FLEISHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., BEST BUY STORES, L.P., and BESTBUY.COM, LLC, Defendants.
J. Leary and David M. Cialkowski, ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, Hart L.
Robinovitch, ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, Daniel C. Hedlund, Raina C.
Borrelli, and Brittany N. Resch, GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, and
Luke P. Hudock, HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C., and Samuel J.
Strauss, TURKE & STRAUSS LLP, for plaintiffs.
A. Wilkinson, HOGAN LOVELLS U.S. LLP, Alicia J. Paller and
Peter H. Walsh, HOGAN LOVELLS U.S. LLP, and Robert B.
Wolinsky, HOGAN LOVELLS U.S. LLP, for defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
case arises from Plaintiffs' purchases of LG-brand
televisions advertised to have higher refresh rates than they
actually did. The present case is a consolidation of two
purported class action cases: the Hudock Case (Civil No.
16-1220) and the Villa Lara Case (Civil No. 17-5222).
Plaintiffs filed these purported class actions against LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LG”) and Best Buy Co.,
Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., and BestBuy.com, LLC
(collectively “Best Buy”).
Court has before it Defendants' fourth motion to dismiss
filed in these two cases (the “Motion”). The
Motion consists mainly of arguments that the Court ruled on
in deciding the earlier motions to dismiss. Consistent with
the Court's prior opinions, the Court will grant the
Motion in part and deny it in part.
THE HUDOCK CASE
Court described the relevant factual background of the Hudock
Case in its March 2017 Order. See Hudock v. LG Elecs.
U.S.A., Inc. (“Hudock I”), No. CV
16-1220 (JRT/FLN), 2017 WL 1157098, at *1 (D. Minn. Mar. 27,
2017). In sum, Breann and Benjamin Hudock (Wisconsin
residents) alleged that they purchased an LG television
advertised to have a refresh rate of 120Hz when its actual
refresh rate was 60Hz. Id.
9, 2016, the Hudocks filed a purported class action against
LG and Best Buy. Id. They alleged eight claims: (1)
violation of Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act
(“MCFA”), Minn. Stat. § 325F.68, et seq.;
(2) violation of Minnesota's Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (“MDTPA”), Minn. Stat. §
325D.43, et seq.; (3) violation of Minnesota's Unlawful
Trade Practices Act (“MUTPA”), Minn. Stat. §
325D.13; (4) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act
(“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 54:8-1, et
seq.; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) breach of express warranty;
(7) breach of implied warranty; and (8) breach of contract.
moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Id. The Court dismissed the breach of
contract claim against LG with prejudice. Id. at
*10. It also found that Plaintiffs were limited to injunctive
relief under the MDTPA. Id. at * 7. Finally, the
Court dismissed the NJCFA claim without prejudice.
Hudocks-attempting to cure the NJCFA deficiencies-filed an
amended complaint and added a new plaintiff, Gerold DeLoss.
Hudock v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc. (“Hudock
II”), No. CV 16-1220 (JRT/FLN), 2018 WL 626527, at
*1-*2 (D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2018). Defendants brought a renewed
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the Court
ultimately denied. Id.
THE VILLA LARA CASE
Court described the relevant factual background of the Villa
Lara Case in its August 2018 Order. Villa Lara v. LG
Elecs. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 17-5222 (JRT/KMM), 2018 WL
3748177, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2018). In sum, Villa Lara (a
California resident) purchased an LG television advertised as
having a 120Hz refresh rate when its actual refresh rate was
Lara filed a putative class action, asserting ten claims: (1)
violation of the MCFA; (2) violation of the MDTPA; (3)
violation of the MUTPA; (4) violation of the NJCFA; (5)
violation of the California Legal Remedies Act
(“CLRA”); (6) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (“CUCL”); (7) breach of express
warranty; (8) breach of implied warranty; (9) breach of
contract; and (10) unjust enrichment. Id.
moved to dismiss. Id. at *2. The Court granted the
motion as to Villa Lara's fraud-based claims and as to
the MDTPA claim except to the extent it sought injunctive
relief. Id. at *7.
THE CONSOLIDATED CASE
February of this year, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, which consolidated the Hudock Case and the
Villa Lara Case. (Consolidated Compl., Feb. 7, 2019, Docket
No. 148.) The Consolidated Complaint also added two class
representatives: Scott Poppen (an Illinois resident) and
Eugene Mannacio (a California resident), and new claims under
the Illinois ...