Inong v. Fujifilm N. Am. Corp.

OPINION AND ORDER Jethro Inong (“Plaintiff”), brings this putative class action against Fujifilm North America Corporation (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant’s product — the X-Pro3 camera (the “Product”) — did not function reliably or remain free of flaws, damage, or deficiencies, despite Defendant’s purported marketing of the Product as durable, capable of functioning reliably, and remaining in proper working condition for years to come. (Doc. 12, “FAC”). Presently pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 16; Doc. 17, “Def. Br.”; Doc. 18). Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition (Doc. 19, “Pl. Br.”), and the motion was fully briefed with the filing of Defendant’s reply memorandum of law. (Doc. 20, “Reply”). Defendant thereafter, on January 9, 2024 and January 17, 2024, provided the Court with supplemental authority in further support of its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 21; Doc. 22). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a resident of California, alleges that approximately four years ago, “in winter 2019,” he purchased the Product from a third-party retailer in Los Angeles, California. (FAC 32, 37). At some unspecified time, the ribbon connector cable in the Product failed. (Id. 12). Plaintiff alleges that “many individuals” have complained about the Product, issues with the ribbon connection, and Defendant’s “handling of the situation” on certain online forum communities. (Id. 19). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant marketed its product as “[a] professional rangefinder camera for photographers on the move who want top-level features, a low-profile, and reliable durability,” which “tells [] purchasers it will function reliably and be free of flaws, damage, defects, and deficiencies subject to normal and intended use.” (Id.

1-3). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant represented that “[t]he combination of durability and advanced features ‘create a camera that can be relied upon to perform in any situation.’” (Id. 9). Thus, Plaintiff expected the Product to be “capable of functioning reliably and remaining in proper working condition for years to come.” (Id. 18). Had Plaintiff known that “the camera fails to operate reliably, consistent with normal and expected use, due in part to its defective ribbon connector cables,” he “would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.” (Id.