To that end, “[a] plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant.” Eghnayem, 2014 WL 5460605, at *4 (emphasis added; quoting T.W.M., 886 F. Supp. at 844). When a plaintiff fails to show privity with a defendant, courts, including this Court, routinely dismiss breach of warranty claims on summary judgment.

. Florida — T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (“The law of Florida is that to recover for the breach of a warranty, either express or implied, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant.”).

[DE 336 p. 74] (emphasis omitted). As support for their argument, the Defendants rely on T.W.M. v. Amer. Medical Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) and Tolliver v. Monaco Coach, Corp. No. 8:06-cv-856-T-30TGW 2006 U.S. LEXIS 40007, at *5 (N.D. Fla. June 16, 2006), both of which stand for the proposition cited by the Defendants. The Defendants also cite a Northern District of Florida case where the court dismissed a breach of implied warranty claim because the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants sold the product to the plaintiffs.

. Case 3:17-cv-00442-WQH-JMA Document 14-1 Filed 04/28/17 PageID.116 Page 28 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 17CV0442 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Florida courts dismissing such claims for lack of privity, see T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (requiring privity); Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (same). Under Florida law, moreover, “[t]he buyer must within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have dis- covered any breach notify the seller of [the] breach or be barred from any remedy.”

4 See, e.g., T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (under Florida law, strict privity required); Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. 2005) (privity required for implied-warranty claims against manufacturer); Fortune View Condo. Ass’n v. Fortune Star Dev. Co., 90 P.3d 1062, 1065 (Wash. 2004) (privity not required for express-warranty claim); Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Prods., Inc., 54 Cal. App. 4th 357, 369 n.10 (1997) (privity required unless plaintiff acted in reliance on written representations). 5 See, e.g., Lutz Farms v. Asgrow Seed Co., 948 F.2d 638, 644–45 (10th Cir. 1991) (Colorado law; reliance not required for express-warranty claim); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655, 669 (Wash. 1986) (reliance not required, but plaintiff must show awareness of representations); Scaringe v. Holstein, 103 A.D.2d 880, 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984) (reliance necessary for express-warranty claim); Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 185 Cal. App. 3d 135, 142 (1986) (reasonable reliance required for express-warranty

T.WM v.Am.Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). Sections 10 and 11 of Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 10, 11, provide the "exclusive grounds" for vacatur and modification of an arbitration award.

; Hill v. Hoover, 899 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1267 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (absent privity, plaintiffs “cannot bring forth a cause of action for breach of written warranty or breach of implied warranty under both Florida law and the MMWA.”); T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (“The law of Florida is that to recover for the breach of a warranty, either express or implied, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant.”); O’Connor v. Kawasaki, 699 F. Supp. 1538, 1543 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (“In Florida, the law of express warranty is governed by 672.

5 Defendant’s reliance on T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995) and Levine v. Wyeth, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 1338 (M.D. Fla. 2010) – which merely recites the T.W.M. holding – is misplaced.

Corp., No. 5:16-cv-129-Oc-30PRL, 2016 WL 3595747, at *7- *8 (M.D. Fla. July 5, 2016) (Moody, J.). See also T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (“Privity is required in order to recover damages from the seller of a product for breach of express or implied warranties.”) (quoting Intergraph Corp. v. Stearman, 555 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)); Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37, 39 (Fla. 1988) (Florida no longer recognizes implied warranty claims for personal injuries in the absence of “privity” between buyer and seller); Barrow v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 96-689-CIV-ORL-19B, 1998 WL 812318, at *46 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 1988), aff’d mem., 190 F.3d 541 (11th Cir. 1999) (dismissing implied warranty claim for lack of privity); Timmons v. Purdue Pharma Co., No. 8:04-CV-1479-T-26MAP, 2006 WL 263602, Case 8:16-cv-03229-JSM-JSS Document 6 Filed 12/27/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID 27 - 7 - at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2006) (same); Hill v. Hoover Co., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1267 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing express warranty claim because plaintiff was not “in privity of contract with the Defendants, and th

“[A] plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant.” Tolliver v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 8:06-cv-856-T-30TGW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40007, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2006) (quoting T.W.M. v. Am. Medical Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995).) Case 3:16-cv-00361-MMH-MCR Document 87 Filed 12/14/16 Page 25 of 33 PageID 1437 26 Cargotec’s Complaint fails to allege privity in any respect that exists between it and NOSAT. Rather, Cargotec relies on its Verified Ratification of Commencement of Action filed on 11/03/2016 attempting to retroactively establish privity with NOSAT.