Under Florida law, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract to recover under throries 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)). "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)).

Specifically, they argue that Plaintiffs allege that they bought the products from Publix, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe's supermarkets, and argue that Florida law requires privity of contract with the defendant in order to recover on express and implied warranty claims. (Id. (citing T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla.1995) ; Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005) ).) Defendants further argue that the express warranty claim must be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants made statements amounting to “an affirmation of fact or promise.”

Plaintiffs rely on two non-binding cases to argue that contractual privity is established if the parties have any type of contract relating to the product. Plaintiffs argue that McAteer v. Black Decker (U.S.), Inc., 1999 WL 33836701 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 1999) and T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995), stand for the broad proposition that as long as the parties have a contract that relates to the product sold, there is contractual privity. But in fact, in T. W.M. the court explicitly stated that a "plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that 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.

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 recipient of an implant is not in privity with the manufacturer when the implant is purchased by the plaintiff's medical provider."). Indeed, as I held on similar facts in T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995): A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant.

FDUPTA does not apply to a "claim for personal injury or death or a claim for damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction" at issue. Fla. Stat. § 501.212(3); T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). 2.

"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).