Chandler v. Zinus, Inc.

Full title: AMANDA CHANDLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZINUS, INC., Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois

Date published: Jun 10, 2022

Facts

Zinus manufactures “bed-in-a-box mattresses” which it sells on online marketplaces, such as Amazon, and through “big box” retailers, such as Walmart and Target. (Doc. 75 at 7). The company is incorporated and has its principal place of business in California. (Doc. 75 at 25). Zinus’s mattresses have a fire-retardant sleeve made of fiberglass. (Doc. 75 at 7). The mattresses also include an outer cover that is equipped with a zipper and can be removed from the mattress. (Doc. 75 at 7-8). Central to the Plaintiffs’ case is the claim that glass fibers routinely break off the fiberglass sleeve, penetrate the outer cover, and spread into the surrounding environment. (Doc. 75 at 7). These fibers have caused skin and eye irritation, breathing issues, and property damage. (Doc. 75 at 7). Breakage of the fibers also makes the fiberglass sleeve less fire-retardant. (Doc. 75 at 8).

On its website, Zinus provides a ten-year “Worry Free” Limited Warranty which provides that “Zinus warrants your mattress against defects in workmanship and materials.” (Doc. 75 at 9). The Warranty also provides that Zinus will replace or refund defective mattresses. (Doc. 75 at 9). At least some of Zinus’s mattresses contained a tag instructing the user to clean the outer cover by placing it in a washing machine and drying it on a gentle air cycle. (Doc. 75 at 11). Other Zinus mattresses included warnings that say, “DO NOT REMOVE COVER.” (Doc. 75 at 27). In the summer of 2019, Zinus posted a statement on the FAQ page of its website warning users not to remove the outer cover. (Doc. 75 at 75). Reviews of Zinus mattresses on Amazon from as early as 2017 also complained of Zinus mattresses releasing glass fibers which injured consumers.

Issue

Decision

For these reasons, the following are ORDERED:

1. Zinus’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 78) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

2. The claims of all non-Illinois plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. 

3. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice as to all Plaintiffs: Count One as it pertains to express warranties; Count Two; Counts Six through Thirteen; Count Fourteen as to affirmative misrepresentations; and Counts Fifteen through Thirty-nine.

4. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the following claims: Count One as it pertains to implied warranties; Counts Three through Five; Count Fourteen as it relates to concealment suppression or omission of material facts; Count Forty; and Count Forty-one.

5. Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 80) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All allegations relating to the statewide classes, other than the Illinois class, are STRICKEN.

6. If Plaintiffs wish to file a third amended complaint, they must do so within 21 days after the entry date of this Order. Defendant shall file its answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint within 30 days after the complaint is filed.

SO ORDERED.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 − sixteen =