Campos, as Mother and Next Friend of ANJEL ONOFRE, a minor v. Razor USA LLC

Filing 31

ORDER: The defendant's motion to dismiss 9 is granted. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 8/8/2018. Mailed notice. (ym, )

Case: 1:18-cv-02518 Document #: 31 Filed: 08/08/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:150

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BLANCA CAMPOS, as Mother and Next
Friend of A.O., a minor
Plaintiff,
v.
RAZOR USA, LLC a/k/a RAZOR, a
Delaware Corporation
Defendants.

)
)
) Case No. 18-cv-2518
)
) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

The defendant’s motion to dismiss [9] is granted. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
STATEMENT
The plaintiff, Blanca Campos, brings this suit against defendant Razor USA, LLC (“Razor”)
on behalf of her minor child, A.O. Campos alleges that A.O. was severely injured when he fell while
using a Razor scooter, striking his eye on the handlebar quick-release lever. Campos filed a
complaint against Razor asserting claims of strict product liability, negligence, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Razor contends that the complaint should be dismissed because Campos’ allegations are insufficient
to state a claim.
A complaint must contain a “short plain statement” of the claim showing that the injured
party is entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868
(2009). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires
more than unadorned assertions without factual enhancement. Id. at 678. A complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to allow the Court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. When ruling on a motion to
1

Case: 1:18-cv-02518 Document #: 31 Filed: 08/08/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:151

dismiss, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 880 F.3d 362, 365
(7th Cir. 2018).
Campos’ complaint alleges what happened in general terms, describing how A.O. struck his
eye on the quick release lever of his scooter. The complaint, however, lacks necessary factual
allegations concerning Campos’ specific theories of liability. Campos alleges that the scooter was
unreasonably dangerous, that it lacked adequate warning labels, that it was defectively designed, and
that it was warranted as being fit for A.O’s use. The complaint, however, contains no factual
allegations concerning the labelling of the scooter in question or any other representations made by
the defendants prior to the plaintiff’s purchase. The complaint also does not describe with adequate
specificity what rendered the scooter unreasonably dangerous or defectively designed. Absent more
detailed factual allegations, Campos’ complaint thus amounts to little more than a formulaic
recitation of the legal elements of her claims and does not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Razor further contends that Campos has specifically failed to state a claim for breach of the
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In order to establish the existence of a warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose, a plaintiff must allege that the seller was aware that the good was
being purchased for a particular purpose and that the buyer was relying on the seller’s skill to select a
good suitable for that purpose. Rubin v. Marshall Field & Co., 597 N.E.2d 688, 692, 232 Ill. App. 3d
522 (1992). Campos, however, has made no allegations capable of establishing that the scooter was
purchased for anything other than its intended use. See Zaffiri v. Pontiac RV, Inc., 2012 IL App (4th)
I20042-U, ¶ 72, 2012 WL 7050429 (“It is long recognized in Illinois that even where a seller has
reason to know of a buyer’s particular purpose, no warranty for a particular purpose is created if the
intended use is no different from the ordinary use of the product.”). The Court accordingly notes
2

Case: 1:18-cv-02518 Document #: 31 Filed: 08/08/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:152

that Campos’ implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim independently warrants
dismissal. The Court therefore grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses this case
without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/8/2018
Entered: _____________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
United States District Court Judge

3