The Defendants argue that Florida courts uniformly hold that contractual privity between the plaintiff and the defendant is required to maintain both breach of express warranty claims and breach of implied warranty claims, citing Fields v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1259 (N.D.Fla.2009); T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla.1995); and O'Connor v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 699 F.Supp. 1538, 1543–44 (S.D.Fla.1988). Further, the Defendants argue that since the Plaintiff has failed to allege that she purchased the Steam Vac directly from the Defendants, the Plaintiff has failed to plead the requisite element of privity for a breach of express or implied warranty action, and thus such an action should be dismissed.

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."

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).

Because Alea does not allege that he purchased the bat directly from Wilson, his implied warranty claim fails. See Hill v. Hoover Co., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1267 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing a breach of implied warranty claim under Florida law because the plaintiff "failed to allege that she purchased the [product] directly from the Defendants, but rather, specifically alleged that she purchased the [product] from a third-party retailer"); T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) ("A plaintiff who purchases a product but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with the defendant."). The law of express warranty is murkier.

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)).

Id. at 1267. The court found Wrigley unpersuasive and relied instead on T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995) for the proposition that all breach of warranty claims require privity. Hoover, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 1267.

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."

DE 20 at 9. Defendant cites case law for the propositions 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 Medical Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995), and "[p]rivity is required even if suit is brought against a manufacturer." Tolliver v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 06-CV-856, 2006 WL 1678842 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2006).