Drover v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.
Filing
64
ORDER Denying 60 Plaintiff's Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff if he chooses to amend his complaint, file a motion to amend attaching the proposed Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/6/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
KEVIN DROVER,
8
9
2:12-CV-510 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),
10
v.
11
LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.,
12
Defendant(s).
13
14
ORDER
15
Presently before the court is plaintiff Kevin Drover’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. #
16
60). Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. replied. (Doc. # 61). Plaintiff responded. (Doc. # 62).
17
I.
Procedural background
18
This case arises out of the sale of defendant’s allegedly defective plasma and LCD televisions
19
to a putative class of plaintiffs. Previously, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s
20
motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 49). Specifically, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim under the Nevada
21
Deceptive Trade Practices Act without prejudice, but permitted plaintiff’s claim for unjust
22
enrichment to stand. (Id.)
23
Defendant then sought reconsideration of this court’s denial of defendant’s motion as to
24
plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. (Doc. # 50). Defendant contended that based on a recently
25
published case by the Nevada Supreme Court,1 the court should reconsider its order and dismiss
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
Certified Fire Prot. Inc. v. Precision Constr., 283 P.3d 250 (Nev. 2012). This case was published after the
briefing process on the motion to dismiss had concluded.
1
plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim with prejudice. (Id.)
2
The court granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the unjust
3
enrichment claim with prejudice. (Doc. # 59). Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of this court’s
4
order dismissing plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim. (Doc. # 60).
5
II.
6
7
Legal standard
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b).
8
The Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration should not be granted
9
“absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
10
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn
11
Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389
12
Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
13
Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only
14
in the following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
15
discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6)
16
any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik, 243 F.3d 549, 549 (9th Cir.
17
2000). See also De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting
18
that the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
19
III.
Discussion
20
Plaintiff argues that reconsideration of the order is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
21
59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because the conclusion that defendant is an “innocent recipient of
22
unrequested benefits” is “manifestly unjust.” But plaintiff has neither come forward with newly
23
discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law, nor shown clear error in the
24
court’s order to warrant reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc, 179 F.3d at
25
665.
26
Further, Plaintiff does not meet the standard for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff
27
argues that the dismissal of his unjust enrichment claim was “manifestly unjust” and creates a “moral
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
hazard,” but does not provide an adequate basis for these arguments. Despite plaintiff’s failure to
2
satisfy the standard for reconsideration, the court turns to the merits of plaintiff’s argument.
3
Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to restitution under the theory of unjust enrichment,
4
however, this is not an appropriate theory of liability for this case. The Third Restatement defines
5
unjustified enrichment as “enrichment that lacks an adequate legal basis . . . .” Restatement (Third)
6
of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1 (2012).
7
In this case, there was an adequate legal basis for defendant’s enrichment because a valid
8
contract existed. Plaintiff’s complaint, and the court, expressly acknowledge the existence of an
9
express limited warranty. (See doc. # 1, ¶¶ 11, 13-14, 36-45; doc. # 49, 5:18-6:2). “A valid contract
10
defines the obligations of the parties as to matters within its scope, displacing to that extent any
11
inquiry into unjust enrichment.” Id. at § 2. Because the court has already recognized the existence
12
of a limited warranty–that is, the valid contract–the court cannot imply a quasi-contract under unjust
13
enrichment theory. See Certified Fire Protection, Inc. v. Precision Construction, 283 P. 3d 250, 257
14
(Nev. 2012); see also Gerlinger v. Amazon.com, Inc., 311 F.Supp.2d 838, 856 (N.D.Cal. 2004)
15
(“unjust enrichment is an action in quasi-contract[, which] cannot lie where a valid express contract
16
covering the same subject matter exists between the parties.”).
17
In addition, courts in other jurisdictions have found that expired warranties remain
18
enforceable and valid, thus precluding an unjust enrichment claim. See Daugherty v. Sony Elecs.,
19
Inc., No. E2004-02627-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 197090, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2006); see
20
also Moulton v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., No. 11-4073 (JLL), 2012 WL 3598760, at *4 (D.N.J.
21
Aug. 21, 2012). The district court in New Jersey specifically held that “claims for unjust enrichment
22
cannot be maintained where an express contract, such as a warranty, exists between the parties.”
23
2012 WL 3598760 at *4; see also Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. SACV 10-711 DOC
24
(ANx), 2011 WL 1832941, *6 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2011) (dismissing plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment
25
claim as precluded by an expired warranty).
26
...
27
...
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
1
IV.
Conclusion
2
Accordingly,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff Kevin Drover’s
4
motion for reconsideration (doc. # 60) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff, if he chooses to amend his complaint, file a
6
motion to amend, attaching the proposed amended complaint, within thirty (30) days of the date of
7
this order.
8
DATED June 6, 2013.
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?