Tori Davis v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana considers Amazon’s partial motion to dismiss Counts 2 through 7 of Tori Davis’s complaint arising from a Baseus magnetic power bank that allegedly caught fire. The court dismisses the negligence claim with prejudice because the complaint did not allege a negligent undertaking, dismisses the declaratory-relief claim as duplicative, and allows the redhibition claim to proceed. The opinion discusses the Louisiana Products Liability Act, negligent undertaking under Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., and Louisiana redhibition law.

Holdings

1. The negligent-undertaking claim in Count 2 fails because the complaint did not allege that Amazon affirmatively or positively undertook a duty to evaluate, identify, remove, or warn customers about unsafe products, nor did it allege any of the additional Section 324A conditions concerning increased risk, performance of another's duty, or reliance.
2. The request for declaratory relief in Count 3 is duplicative and was properly dismissed because adjudication of the substantive redhibition claim would resolve the same issues concerning contractual limitations and waiver.
3. Davis plausibly alleged a redhibition claim because she alleged that the power bank had a nonapparent defect existing at the time of sale, rendered the product unsafe and unfit for its intended purpose, and was sufficiently serious that a reasonable buyer would not have purchased it if aware of the defect.
4. Counts 5 and 6 did not state independent causes of action, so Amazon's motion to dismiss those counts was denied as moot; to the extent the plaintiff sought damages directly under the cited statutes, those causes of action were dismissed.
5. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim in Count 7 would not be dismissed on the ground asserted by Amazon because the court denied dismissal of the related redhibition claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Davis plausibly alleged a Louisiana negligent-undertaking claim against Amazon.
2. Whether Davis's request for declaratory relief was duplicative of her redhibition claim.
3. Whether Davis plausibly alleged a Louisiana redhibition claim against Amazon.
4. Whether Counts 5 and 6 stated independent causes of action under the Consumer Product Safety Act or related consumer-protection statutes.
5. Whether the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim should be dismissed because the related redhibition claim allegedly failed.

Disposition

other