United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Blakey United States District Judge
consolidated class action involves seven plaintiffs from six
different states suing Defendants Corelle Brands LLC, f/k/a
World Kitchen, LLC, and Corelle Brands Holdings Inc., f/k/a
WKI Holding Company, Inc. (collectively,
“Corelle”) for various claims arising from the
allegedly defective manufacturing of Pyrex glassware.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants also
move to strike portions of the Consolidated Amended Complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
reasons explained below, this Court grants in part and denies
in part Defendants' motion.
putative class action arises from a change in the glass used
to manufacture Pyrex glassware (the Products). The following
facts come from Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint,
, and are accepted as true.
currently manufacture and market the Products. Id.
¶ 28. Corning Incorporated originally developed and
manufactured the Products. Id. ¶¶ 20-23.
Although Corning no longer manufacturers the Products, it
licenses the Pyrex name to Corelle. Id.
in the early 1900s, Corning manufactured the Products using
borosilicate glass. Id. ¶ 34. This glass is
extremely resistant to thermal shock caused by sudden
temperature changes. Id. ¶¶ 4, 35-37. For
that reason, when manufactured using borosilicate glass, the
Products are ideal for cooking because the same glass
container can be used for cooking and serving without
shattering, which does not hold true of most glassware.
Id. ¶¶ 36-37. Capitalizing on this fact,
Corning advertised the Products as being suitable for use
from the “ice-box to oven” and to “Bake in
a glass!” Id. ¶¶ 64-66. Eventually
Pyrex bakeware became a “household name” and
gained a strong reputation among consumers. Id.
are consumers living in multiple states: New York, Florida,
Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Massachusetts. Id.
¶¶ 13-19. Plaintiffs purchased or received the
Products and used them for cooking. Id. ¶¶
92-118. When Plaintiffs used the Products, they experienced
thermal breakage and the Products shattered. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that the Products suffer from a latent
defect. Id. ¶¶ 5, 9. Based upon this
alleged defect, Plaintiffs assert various contract, consumer
protection, and unjust enrichment claims. Id.
¶¶ 135-466. None allege personal injury.
The Switch from Borosilicate Glass to Soda Lime
point starting “several decades ago, ”
id. ¶ 38, Corning, and later Corelle, began
manufacturing the Products using soda lime glass instead of
borosilicate, id. Significantly, soda lime glass has
a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than borosilicate
glass. Id. ¶¶ 42-46. Practically speaking,
this means that soda lime glass expands more when heated.
Id. ¶ 44. In turn, Plaintiffs allege that
because soda lime glass expands more when heated, it is
significantly more prone to shattering or breaking when
exposed to rapid temperature changes, such as moving an item
from the oven to the countertop. Id. ¶¶
43-46. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that the likelihood of
soda lime Pryex shattering increases with use over time.
Id. ¶¶ 47-49.
the soda lime more glass more heat resistant, Defendants
temper the glass. Id. ¶ 50. Plaintiffs allege
that the tempering process: (1) increases the risk of
breakage when consumers use the Product over time; (2) causes
the glass to shatter rather than “dicing” into
safer, small pieces when it breaks; and (3) increases the
risk that broken glass will “fly through the air”
due to the process' creation of internal tension in the
glass. Id. ¶¶ 52-58.
soda lime glass remains more prone to thermal breakage than
borosilicate glass, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed
to inform consumers that they fundamentally changed the
Products. Id. ¶¶ 1-9, 86-91. Instead,
Plaintiffs allege Defendants continued to advertise the
Products in the same manner they had previously to create an
impression that the Products had not changed; thereby
continuing to capitalize on Pyrex's strong consumer
reputation earned from the borosilicate products'
identify several relevant representations that they believe
became part of the bargain when they purchased the Products.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants represented that:
• Where Defendants do disclose the Products are made
from soda lime glass (on an online FAQ), they represent that
soda lime glass provides the same high-quality performance as
borosilicate glass. Id. ¶ 7 n.3.
• The Products as currently manufactured are versatile.
Id. ¶ 67.
• The Products as currently manufactured are dishwasher,
refrigerator, microwave, and pre-heated oven safe.
• The Products as currently manufactured can be used for
cooking, baking, warming, and reheating food in microwaves,
ovens, and preheated conventional or convection ovens.
Id. ¶ 90.
claim that the Products as currently manufactured are
inherently incapable of meeting Defendants'
representations. Id. ¶¶ 34-58, 69-70.
Motion to Dismiss-Rule 12(b)(6)
seeks to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6). To analyze a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), this Court must construe the Complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiffs, accept as true all
well-pleaded facts, and draw reasonable inferences in their
favor. Yeftich v. Navistar, Inc., 722 F.3d 911, 915
(7th Cir. 2013); Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d
461, 863 (7th Cir. 2010). Statements of law, however, need
not be accepted as true. Yeftich, 722 F.3d at 915.
Rule 12(b)(6) limits this Court's consideration to
“allegations set forth in the complaint itself,
documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that
are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and
information that is properly subject to judicial
notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432,
436 (7th Cir. 2013).
survive Defendants' motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Complaint must “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Yeftich, 722 F.3d at
915. For a claim to have facial plausibility, a plaintiff
must plead “factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The amount of factual
allegations required to state a plausible claim for relief
depends on the complexity of the case, but threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Limestone
Dev. Corp. v. Vill. Of Lemont, 520 F.3d 797, 803-04 (7th
if the claims of the putative class do not have a class
representative to assert them, those claims must be
dismissed. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564
U.S. 338, 349 (2011); E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v.
Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977).
Motion to Strike-Rule 12(f)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “a district
court ‘may strike from the pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.'” Geary v. Maryville
Acad., No. 12 C 1720, 2012 WL 2129228, at *1 (N.D. Ill.
June 12, 2012) (quoting Delta Consulting Group, Inc. v.
R. Randle Const., Inc., 554 F.3d 1133, 1141 (7th Cir.
2009)). Motions to strike are generally disfavored but are
nevertheless appropriate when “they serve to expedite
litigation.” Id. (citing Heller Fin., Inc.
v. Midwhey Powder, 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989)).
Defendants did not challenge standing, this Court has an
independent obligation to consider whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims in this case. Joyce
v. Joyce, 975 F.2d 379, 386 (7th Cir. 1992). The
Constitution prohibits this Court from exercising
jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claim when the plaintiff
has not alleged facts demonstrating he or she has standing.
Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992);
see also Carello v. Aurora Policemen Credit Union,
930 F.3d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 2019) (“The doctrine of
standing imposes a non-negotiable limit on the power of a
federal court.”). Indeed, establishing standing is not
a “mere pleading requirement but rather an
indispensable part of the plaintiff's case.”
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. When a plaintiff fails to
demonstrate standing, courts lack authority to decide the
merits of his or her case. Meyers v. Nicolet Rest. of De
Pere, LLC, 843 F.3d 724, 726 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing
Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Zielke, 845
F.2d 1463, 1467 (7th Cir. 1988)). Standing requires, among
other things, that the plaintiff suffered an injury in fact.
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
this background in mind, this Court turns to whether
Plaintiffs Simon and Fullerton possess standing to assert
their claims. Both individuals base their claims upon the
failure to receive the benefit of the bargain. 
¶¶ 94, 108. In other words, Plaintiffs seek damages
meant to give them the benefit they expected to receive from
the contract they made with Defendants. E. Allen Farnsworth,
Legal Remedies for Breach of Contract, 70 Colum. L.
Rev. 1145, 1147-48 (1970).
neither Plaintiff Simon nor Plaintiff Fullerton purchased the
Products.  ¶¶ 92, 103. Plaintiff
Fullerton's boyfriend purchased her Pyrex, and Plaintiff
Simon received Pyrex as a gift. Id. Because neither
individual purchased the Products, neither Plaintiff failed
to receive the benefit of the bargain as they did not strike
a bargain with Defendants by purchasing the Products. For
this reason, this Court must dismiss their claims for lack of
standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 563 (in order to
establish injury to confer standing, the plaintiff must be
among the injured) (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton,
405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972)).
this Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs Simon's and
Fullerton's claims without prejudice. Additionally,
because Plaintiff Simon is the only class representative
asserting claims based upon Michigan law, Plaintiffs'
claims asserting violations of Michigan law are dismissed
because the putative class claims cannot proceed without a
class representative, Wal-Mart Stores, 564 U.S. at
49; E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys., 431 U.S. at 403
(1977), this claim cannot proceed.
Express Warranty Claims
now to the individual claims, this Court first analyzes the
remaining Plaintiffs' contract claims.
Scope of the Warranty
allege Defendants sold the Products with several express
warranties attached.  ¶¶ 140, 161, 179, 197,
215, 232, 249;  at 23-24. Defendants contest the
existence of some express warranties, challenge that they did
not breach others, and argue that Plaintiffs failed to state
a claim for some of ...