A California federal court recently rejected rejected a proposed class action in which plaintiffs alleged smoke alarms were defective in that the product’s packaging allegedly omitted safety information.  See Bird v. First Alert Inc. et al., No. 4:14-cv-03585 (N.D. Cal. ).

The defendant sells two types of smoke detectors — ionization, which the opinion said are better at catching fast-flaming fires, and photoelectric, which are reportedly more sensitive to smoldering fires. The basis of plaintiff’s complaint is that the defendant failed to adequately disclose the
dangers of using ionization smoke alarms – specifically, that ionization smoke alarms do
not alert occupants of smoldering-type fires as effectively as photoelectric smoke alarms.  However, the ionization alarm, which Bird purchased, explains these differences clearly on its packaging and recommended the use of both types of alarms for “maximum protection.”

Defendant moved to dismiss. The allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).  A motion to dismiss should be granted if the complaint does not proffer enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See id. at 558-59. W]here the well-pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not shown – that the pleader is entitled to relief.  Although the court generally may not consider material outside the pleadings when resolving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court may consider matters that are properly the subject of judicial notice. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, the court may consider exhibits attached to the complaint, see Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989),

Plaintiff obviously had a high hurdle to overcome to state a claim here, given that the product packaging explains that the two types of smoke alarms respond differently to different types of fires, and recommends that consumers utilize both types. Nevertheless, plaintiff contended that the disclosures on the packaging did not constitute a “warning” and did not amount to a “sufficient disclosure” of the extent of the “safety defect” inherent in the ionization smoke detectors, because they allegedly failed to state that the ionization smoke detectors might not safely alert consumers in time to escape the deadly effects of smoldering fires.

The court recognized that even a nondisclosure claim sounding in fraud must still be pled with particularity. Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1126-27; see also Marolda v. Symantec Corp., 672 F.Supp. 2d 992, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Specifically, the plaintiff must set forth an explanation as to why the omission complained of  made the warning or label false and misleading in order to state a claim under Rule 9(b). Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co., 942 F.Supp. 2d 915, 935 (N.D. Cal. 2013). Thus, plaintiff must describe the content of the omission and where the omitted information should or could have been revealed, as well as provide representative samples of advertisements, offers, or other representations that plaintiff relied on to make her purchase and that failed to include the allegedly omitted information. See Eisen v. Porsche Cars North Am., Inc.,, 2012 WL 841019 at *3 (citing
Marolda, 672 F.Supp. 2d at 1002). While the complaint alleged that the “packaging” on plaintiff’s ionization smoke detector did not contain any warning, instructions, or other information disclosing,
describing, or warning about the smoke detector’s inability to adequately, effectively, and
safely detect, warn, alert, and protect occupants from smoldering-type fires,  in fact the packaging did disclose information regarding the performance of ionization alarms in smoldering fires.

Yet, the complaint alleged no facts regarding these disclosures – in particular, when plaintiff looked
at the packaging (if ever), whether she reviewed the disclosures on the packaging (if at all),
or why she disregarded the clear recommendation that she use both ionization and photoelectric alarms. Nor did the complaint allege any facts showing that the disclosures were inadequate.

Motion to dismiss granted without prejudice.