• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 1 of 38 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Eastern Division MARCIA SCHUTTE, individually and on Case No. _________ behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. CORELLE BRANDS HOLDINGS INC. f/k/a WKI HOLDING COMPANY, INC. (WORLD KITCHEN), CORELLE BRANDS LLC, and CORNING INCORPORATED, Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff Marcia Schutte (“Plaintiff”) hereby files this class action complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, by and through the undersigned attorneys, against Defendant Corelle Brands Holdings Inc. and Defendant Corelle Brands LLC (collectively, “Corelle”) and Defendant Corning Incorporated (“Corning”) (Corelle and Corning are referred to herein collectively as “Defendants”) and alleges as follows based upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief based upon, inter alia, investigation conducted by her attorneys. NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This case arises from Defendants’ betrayal of the public trust. Defendants identified and seized on an opportunity to exploit a household brand name which has been known and trusted Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 2 of 38 PageID #:2 for over a century—Pyrex—by quietly replacing the original Pyrex product with an inferior and unsafe product that shatters and injures consumers on a regular basis. 2. Pyrex is a glass cookware product (hereinafter, “Pyrex”) originally developed and manufactured by Corning, a company revered for its materials science expertise and innovation. For decades, Corning manufactured Pyrex from a durable material known as borosilicate glass. 3. Borosilicate glass has a very low coefficient of thermal expansion; that is, it does not expand much when it is heated, even to high temperatures. Borosilicate glass is also mechanically strong and can withstand the rigors of normal household kitchen use without breaking. 4. Because Pyrex products made of borosilicate glass were strong and could withstand the substantial temperature changes that occur during normal household use, and because Corning advertised those very traits, Pyrex products manufactured from borosilicate glass earned the trust of generations of American consumers, who correctly believed that they could safely use Pyrex for just about any normal household kitchen task. 5. Corning, well aware of the reputation and perception of Pyrex and the trust that consumers placed in their Pyrex products, proceeded to take advantage of that trust. Rather than continuing to manufacture Pyrex as it always had, Corning quietly abandoned borosilicate glass and began manufacturing Pyrex from a less expensive, far inferior material known as soda lime glass. 6. When heated, Pyrex products manufactured from soda lime glass expand substantially more than Pyrex manufactured from borosilicate glass. Soda lime Pyrex, therefore, cannot withstand nearly the same range of household temperature changes as Pyrex manufactured from borosilicate glass. 2 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 3 of 38 PageID #:3 7. Instead, Pyrex made of soda lime glass can and regularly does shatter unexpectedly during the course of normal household kitchen use, often sending pieces of sharp glass flying through the air (“the Defect”). 8. Hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers have been seriously injured by shattering Pyrex, and those numbers will only increase as long as these Pyrex products—which are currently manufactured and sold by Corelle under a license from Corning—remain on the market. 9. In fact, a prominent retired Corning scientist, upon reading a scientific article highlighting the safely problems associated with Pyrex and other soda lime glass cookware, wrote to the author to say that the article “serves the very important public purpose of publicizing the criminal act, at least in my mind, of selling cheap, high-expansion soda lime glass to the unsuspecting public.” 10. Indeed, from the time that Defendants started making Pyrex out of soda lime glass, they have failed to adequately disclose to consumers that the products are manufactured with the Defect. 11. To the contrary, Defendants have advertised and marketed, and continue to advertise and market, Pyrex in a manner that reinforces existing consumer perceptions about the quality and characteristics of the Pyrex brand—even though the quality has decreased and the product is now unsafe for normal household use. 12. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class defined below, seeks to obtain relief from Defendants, including, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief. 13. Specifically, this class action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection with Defendants’ unfair business practices and deceptive marketing and sale of Pyrex products made of soda lime glass (“Class Pyrex Products”). Defendants misrepresent, through advertising 3 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 4 of 38 PageID #:4 to potential customers, that Class Pyrex Products are safe for normal household use when they are not. 14. Defendants have misled and continue to mislead consumers into believing that soda lime Pyrex products are capable of adequately and safely storing, heating and serving food, when in fact they suffer from the Defect. 15. Defendants also inflate the prices for such Pyrex products to reflect their claimed storage, heating and serving capabilities. As a consequence of Defendants’ misrepresentations and the Defect, consumers pay more for Pyrex than they would pay if they knew they were receiving an unsafe and significantly lower quality product than is represented in Defendants’ advertising, and/or would not have brought the products at all had they known of the Defect. 16. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Defendants’ violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“CFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq; the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (“UDTPA”); the implied warranty of merchantability under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/2- 314; the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1345.01 et seq.; the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Ch. 4165; the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1302.01 et seq.; and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3); as well as claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because: (i) there are 100 or more class members, (ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (iii) there is minimal diversity because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different 4 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 5 of 38 PageID #:5 states. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 18. Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Corelle is headquartered in this District, has advertised in this District, and has received substantial revenues and profits from sales of Pyrex which it has directed into the stream of commerce in this District; therefore, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. PARTIES The Plaintiff 19. Plaintiff Marcia Schutte (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Ohio. 20. In or about April 2018, Plaintiff purchased several new Pyrex bowls from a Kroger store in Ohio. Some of Plaintiff’s newly purchased Pyrex bowls are depicted in Photo “A” below. Photo “A” 21. Shortly after her purchase, in or about April 2018, Plaintiff cooked soup in a stock pot on her stovetop, turned off the burner and served the soup in bowls. While the remaining soup cooled in the pot, Plaintiff placed one of her new empty Pyrex bowls on the counter. 5 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 6 of 38 PageID #:6 22. After she finished eating, Plaintiff ladled the remaining soup into the Pyrex bowl with one hand and stabilized the bowl with her other hand. 23. While Plaintiff was ladling soup, the Pyrex bowl shattered in the hand that was holding it. Sharp shards of glass flew in all directions throughout the kitchen, including into the stock pot and even into her clothing. Portions of Plaintiff’s shattered Pyrex bowl are depicted in Photos “B” and “C” below. Photo “B” 6 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 7 of 38 PageID #:7 Photo “C” 24. Plaintiff has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Defendants’ failure to disclose the faulty formulation of Pyrex in that: (1) she paid more than she otherwise would have paid for her Pyrex products (if she would have chosen to purchase the Pyrex products at all); (2) she had to clean up shattered Pyrex glass pieces and lost a fully-prepared meal; (3) she had to replace the destroyed Pyrex bowl at her own expense; and (4) she was exposed to a potentially dangerous situation. The Defendants Corning 25. Defendant Corning Incorporated, or Corning, was incorporated in New York in 1989 as a successor corporation to Corning Glass Works, which had been incorporated in New York in 1936. 26. Defendant Corning, which is headquartered in Corning, New York, is “one of the world's leading innovators in materials science,” with “expertise in glass science, ceramics science, and optical physics, along with its deep manufacturing and engineering capabilities. Corning's industry-leading products include damage-resistant cover glass for mobile devices; precision glass 7 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 8 of 38 PageID #:8 for advanced displays; optical fiber, wireless technologies, and connectivity solutions for state-of- the-art communications networks[.]” 27.

Load more

  38

Copy Link