Williams et al v. Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00598-KDB-UMJ
CATHY WILLIAMS AND
CATHERINE SEGURA,
Plaintiffs,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ELECTROLUX CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, INC;
ELECTROLUX NORTH
AMERICA INC; AND CURTIS
INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
Defendants.
In this putative, nationwide class action, Plaintiffs allege warranty and related claims based
on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (“CPSC”) recall of several models of mini-
refrigerators manufactured, distributed and sold by Defendants. Now before the Court is
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) in which Defendants ask the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint under the principle of “prudential mootness” because Plaintiffs have already
been offered a refund in connection with the CPSC recall. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court will GRANT the motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
However, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to
relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). Defendants move to dismiss
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or limit their claims under Rule
12(b)(1).
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted” tests whether the complaint is legally and factually
sufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic
Corp., 550 U.S. at 570; Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010),
aff’d sub nom. Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012). In evaluating
whether a claim is stated, “[the] court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” but does not consider “legal conclusions, elements of
a cause of action, ... bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[,] ... unwarranted
inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v.
Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). Construing the facts in this manner,
a complaint must only contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6) determines only whether a claim is stated; “it does not resolve contests surrounding
the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of North
Carolina v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).
Also, in analyzing a Rule 12 motion, a court may consider “documents incorporated into
the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” See Tellabs,
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). In particular, “a court may consider
official public records, documents central to plaintiff's claim, and documents sufficiently referred
to in the complaint ... so long as the authenticity of these documents is not disputed.” Chapman v.
Asbury Auto. Grp., Inc., No. 3:15 cv 679, 2016 WL 4706931, at *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2016)
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 8

3
(quoting Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 F. App’x 395, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2006)); see also Goines v.
Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2016).
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may assert that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
a plaintiff’s complaint by challenging the plaintiff’s standing. See, e.g., White Tail Park, Inc. v.
Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. 2005). When a 12(b)(1) motion is filed, the plaintiff bears the
burden to prove that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th
Cir. 1982).
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Cathy Williams is a resident of Ohio and Catherine Segura is a resident of Iowa.
Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”), ¶¶ 15-16. They allege that Defendants Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc.
and its subsidiary Electrolux North America, Inc. (together “Electrolux”) own the Frigidaire line
of appliances, including mini-refrigerators manufactured and marketed by their licensee Defendant
Curtis International, LTD (“Curtis”). Compl., ¶¶ 2-3, 17-19. On July 25, 2025, Curtis, in
cooperation with the CPSC, issued a voluntary recall of several Frigidaire mini-refrigerator
models, affecting over 600,000 units sold nationwide and online between January 2020 and
December 2023. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 24, 29, n. 15. Plaintiffs allege that the products are defective because
of internal electrical components which can short-circuit, creating a fire risk that has resulted in
approximately 2 dozen reported incidents of the mini-refrigerators overheating, catching fire, etc..
Id. at ¶¶ 9, 25. Curtis has offered a refund of the purchase price in connection with the recall. Id.
at ¶ 29.
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased a recalled Frigidaire mini refrigerator new and
intended to put it to ordinary use. Id. The Complaint does not allege when or where Plaintiffs
purchased their Frigidaire mini-refrigerators nor is there any allegation that they ever experienced
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 8

4
any problems with their products. The Complaint contends that the offered refund is “inadequate”
because it “fails to address any property damages or other damages due to actual fires caused by
the Products” and because it “requires users to verify the model numbers.” Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiffs
further claim that “verification is impossible if the recalled and defective Mini-Fridge has caught
fire.” Id. However, Plaintiffs do not allege that the mini-refrigerators they purchased caught fire,
that they suffered any property damage, or that they have been unable to verify the model numbers
on their appliances. Rather, Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages because had they known of the
defect that prompted the recall, “they would not have purchased [the mini-refrigerators] or would
have paid significantly less.” Id. at ¶ 35. They do not allege that the refund offered by Curtis is
insufficient to cover that alleged loss of value.
On August 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this action asserting claims for breach of express and
implied warranties and unjust enrichment on behalf of themselves, a national class, and subclasses
of Iowa and Ohio consumers who purchased the recalled mini-refrigerators. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 48-90.
Other than the allegation that “the distribution and sale of the defective product occurred within
this District,” the connection of Plaintiff’s claims to North Carolina are unexplained. Id. at ¶ 23.
In response to the Complaint, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which has been fully briefed
and is ripe for the Court’s decision.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants’ primary argument is that the Court should dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims as
“prudentially moot” in light of the recall and refund remedy offered by Curtis. That is, Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged they suffered any compensable damages that will not be
remedied by the refund already available to them. The Court agrees that the case is prudentially
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 8

5
moot. See Humphries v. Harley-Davidson Inc., No. 7:23-CV-05524-JDA, 2025 WL 1836703, at
*3-4 (D.S.C. July 3, 2025).
As thoroughly explained in Humphries, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes the
doctrine of prudential mootness. See S-1 v. Spangler, 832 F.2d 294, 297 (4th Cir. 1987)
(concluding the court “need not decide whether [a settlement] moots the case in strict constitutional
case or controversy terms, because we conclude that we should treat this appeal as moot for
prudential reasons”). Prudential mootness rests on a court’s discretion to determine that “[i]n some
circumstances, a controversy, not actually moot, is so attenuated that considerations of prudence
and comity for coordinate branches of government counsel the court to stay its hand, and to
withhold relief it has the power to grant.” Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 627
F.2d 289, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1980). As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, “if events
so overtake a lawsuit that the anticipated benefits of a remedial decree no longer justify the trouble
of deciding the case on the merits, equity may demand not decision but dismissal.” Winzler v.
Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 681 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 2012) (noting that the
“[p]rudential mootness doctrine often makes its appearance in cases where ... a coordinate branch
of government steps in to promise the relief [a plaintiff] seeks”).
Here, the recall of the Frigidaire mini-refrigerators is being overseen by the CPSC, a federal
agency tasked by Congress with promulgating consumer product safety standards and enforcing
the provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 2051, et seq. Therefore, another
branch of government has already offered Plaintiffs the opportunity to obtain relief from their now
regretted purchase. The Court must accordingly abstain from “affording a judicial remedy on top
of one already promised by a coordinate branch,” as doing so “risks needless inter-branch disputes
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 8

6
over the execution of the remedial process and the duplicative expenditure of finite public
resources.” Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 681 F.3d 1208, 1211 (10th Cir. 2012).
Numerous courts in addition to Humphries have held that a recall renders a case
prudentially moot. E.g., Winzler, 681 F.3d 1208; Letson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 23-10420, 2024
WL 845844 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2024); Diaz v. Ford Motor Co., No. 23-10029, 2023 WL
6164455 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2023); Ward-Richardson v. FCA US LLC, 690 F. Supp. 3d 1372
(N.D. Ga. 2023); Pacheco v. Ford Motor Co., No. 22-11927, 2023 WL 2603937 (E.D. Mich. Mar.
22, 2023); Sharp v. FCA US LLC, 637 F. Supp. 3d 454 (E.D. Mich. 2022). For example, in Letson,
the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), alleging a defect
that caused fuel injectors to crack, which increased the risk of engine fires. 2024 WL 845844, at
*1. Ford initiated a recall of the class vehicles, agreeing to repair the vehicles without charge. Id.
The court concluded that the case was prudentially moot where Ford had issued a recall to remedy
the defect and subjected itself to NHTSA’s continuing oversight and authority. Id. at *3. The court
rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that their diminished-value injuries remained even after the recall,
determining that Ford’s recall “restor[ed] their vehicle's values and eliminat[ed] plaintiffs’
overpayment injuries.” Id.
Similarly in Ward-Richardson, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against FCA US
LLC (“FCA”), which manufactures Jeep Wranglers, alleging a defect in the electrical/computer
system. 690 F. Supp. 3d at 1374–75. FCA initiated a recall of the class vehicles, offering to repair
the defect without charge. Id. at 1375–76. The court concluded that the case was prudentially moot
and that the prudential mootness doctrine applies to claims for monetary relief in addition to claims
for equitable relief. Id. at 1377–81. The court specifically noted that the recall invoked the
oversight of NHTSA, which “is vested with statutory authority (and responsibility) to monitor each
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 8

7
safety recall to make sure owners receive safe, free, and effective remedies from manufacturers
according to the Safety Act and Federal regulations.” Id. at 1379 (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also id. at 1380–81; 49 U.S.C. § 30120(e) (“If the Secretary decides a manufacturer
has not reasonably met the remedy requirements, the Secretary shall order the manufacturer to take
specified action to meet those requirements and may take any other action authorized under this
chapter.”).
In opposition to a finding of prudential mootness, Plaintiffs reprise their argument that the
offered purchase price refund is “inadequate” because it does not pay for any property or other
damages due to actual fires caused by the Products and because it requires users to verify the model
numbers, which cannot be done if the mini-refrigerator has caught fire. Whatever the merit of this
argument with respect to the owner of a mini-refrigerator that actually caught fire (a question the
Court does not reach),1 Plaintiffs, who have not alleged that their mini-refrigerator experienced a
fire (nor that it malfunctioned at all), cannot avoid dismissal of their claims as prudentially moot
simply by referencing different harm allegedly suffered by other purchasers.2
In sum, this Court agrees with the reasoning of its sister courts that have concluded that a
recall that includes an effective remedy renders the case prudentially moot. See Humphries, 2025
WL 1836703; Letson, 2024 WL 845844; Diaz 2023 WL 6164455; Ward-Richardson, 690 F. Supp.
3d 1372; Pacheco, 2023 WL 2603937; Sharp, 637 F. Supp. 3d 454; see also Winzler, 681 F.3d at
1211 (“Given all this, there remains not enough value left for the courts to add in this case to
1 However, the Court notes that according to the Complaint the number of actual fires appears to
be very small and there is no indication what additional remedy, if any, Curtis has offered for
situations that involve damage beyond the product being refunded.
2 Of course, the fact that Plaintiffs did not suffer the same harm as other putative class members
also raises doubts about their suitability as class representative.
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 7 of 8

8
warrant carrying on with the business of deciding its merits.”). Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss will be granted.3
IV. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED; and
2. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
3 The Court need not and does not reach Defendants’ alternative argument that the Court should
dismiss the claims asserted on behalf of a national class because of a lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction (although the Court again notes the apparent limitations of Plaintiffs as viable class
representatives).
Signed: February 12, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00598-KDB-UMJ Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 8 of 8