In Florida, implied warranty claims require privity between the plaintiff and the defendant. See T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995), citingKramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1988). Privity is required even if suit is brought against a manufacturer.

The FDCA does not expressly provide a private cause of action. “Legislative intent, as evidenced by the language and structure of the Act, does not support the conclusion that the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act impliedly provides a private cause of action.” T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 845 (N.D. Fla. 1995). “The FDCA expressly prohibits private claims for violations of that statute, 21 U.S.C. § 337(a), strongly evidencing a legislative intent not to create a private cause of action.

"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. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). A plaintiff "cannot execute an end-run around Florida's historic privity requirement by employing principal-agent theory . . . ."

While Plaintiff alleges damages relating to tremendous stress, anxiety and depression, as well as the exacerbation of her pre-existing injuries, the FDUTPA does not permit claims for personal injury.See Fla. Stat. § 501.212(3); T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). Here, in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, her conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for violation of the FDUTPA.

Under Florida law, to recover for breach of implied warranty, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant. T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (holding that plaintiff who does not buy product directly from defendant is not in privity with that defendant), citing Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 1988); McAteer v. Black Decker, Inc., 1999 WL 33836701 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (stating that a manufacturer's issuance of "written instructions and a written warranty to the ultimate consumer" were insufficient to create the requisite "privity" for breach of implied warranty). As properly noted by the Defendant Fleetwood, Plaintiffs lack privity with Fleetwood to bring an "implied warranty" action against it. Accordingly, Count I is dismissed with prejudice.