Pursuant to Florida law, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract to recover under theories of breach of express or implied warranties. T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1988); West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976)); see also Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So. 2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that "in order to recover for the breach of a warranty either express or implied, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant"). "A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant."

As a preliminary matter, “[t]he 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.” T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (internal citations omitted).

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of warranty because such a claim requires privity between the plaintiff and defendant. E.g., 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. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)).

If there is a contractual relationship with the manufacturer, the vehicle of implied warranty remains.Id. at 91; see also T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (in order to recover under breach of express or implied warranty the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant). "A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant." T.W.M., 886 F.Supp. at 844.

Amoroso v. Samuel Friedland Family Enterprises, 604 So.2d 827, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see also Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005). As the court explained in T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842 (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.

Amoroso v. Samuel Friedland Family Enterprises, 604 So.2d 827, 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see also Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005). As the court explained in T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842 (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.

"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." T.W.M. v. American Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla. 1995) (citing Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1988) Intergraph Corp. v. Stearman, 555 So.2d 1282, 1283 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990)); Elizabeth N. v. Riverside Group, Inc., 585 So.2d 376, 378 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1991) ("A warranty, whether express or implied, is fundamentally a contract. A contract cause of action requires privity.") (quoting Navajo Circle, Inc. v. Development Concepts Corp., 373 So.2d 689, 692 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1979)); Hernandez v. Coopervision, Inc., 691 So.2d 639, 641 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1997) (dismissing claims for implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for purpose due to lack of privity).

" Our review of Florida law reveals no clear rule about whether privity is required in every Florida express warranty claim. Compare T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (stating that privity is required for all express warranty claims), with Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 663 F.Supp.2d 1336, 1342–43 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (recognizing that privity may not be required for all express warranty claims). But even if we assume privity is required, Mr. Godelia has sufficiently alleged it.

Although the complaint states Mr. Stanziano “was in privity with Genzyme throughout his treatment with his Genzyme case coordinator as well as being registered in the Genzyme sponsored Fabry Registry,” the complaint does not allege that he and Genzyme had a buyer-seller relationship. See id. (“A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant” (quoting T.W.M.v.Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995).); cf. id.

Amoroso, 604 So. 2d at 833 (explaining that "in [Kramer] the [Florida] [S]upreme [C]ourt held that a no-privity claim for breach of implied warranty was abolished by the adoption of strict liability in Florida in [West]" and therefore privity is a requirement for a breach of implied warranty claim); Cooper v. Old Williamsburg Candle Corp., 653 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2009) ("To sustain a claim for breach of implied warranty under Florida law, the plaintiff must demonstrate that [s]he is in privity with the defendant." (citing T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Kramer, 520 So. 2d at 39))).