Nikolas Econn v. 667 DS Services of America, Inc., et al.

In sum, Plaintiff establishes a low presence of substantive unconscionability. Because the agreement provides that any offending provisions may be severed and, in this case, would cure the defect, the court will sever the confidentiality provision. With the confidentiality provision severed, there is no substantive unconscionability present in the arbitration agreement to invalidate it as unconscionable. Therefore, the court finds the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The motion to compel is GRANTED.

B. Stay of Proceedings Defendants also move to stay proceedings pending arbitration.¿ Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides that if the court has ordered the arbitration of a controversy, it "shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies."¿ Therefore, under section 1281.4, because the motion to compel arbitration is granted, the motion to stay is GRANTED.

IV. CONCLUSION The motion to compel arbitration is Granted. T he action is ordered stayed pending completion of arbitration proceedings. ¿ ¿ A Status Conference re: Arbitration Proceedings is set for March 10, 2027, at 9:00 a.m.¿ The court orders the parties to initiate arbitration within 90 days and to file a declaration with the court no later than five court days before this date confirming that arbitration has been initiated. Moving party is ordered to give notice, unless waived. Dated: September 10, 2026 | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court |

Ruling Judge Brock T. Hammond, Department 407 HEARING DATE: September 10, 2026 TRIAL DATE: Vacated CASE: Nikolas Econn v. 667 DS Services of America, Inc., et al. CASE NO.: 26STCV08092 DEFENDANT PRIMO BRANDS CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Defendant Primo Brands Corporation RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Nikolas Econn Plaintiff, Nikolas Econn, was placing a 5-gallon glass water bottle down when the bottle suddenly shattered. Plaintiff suffered lacerations. Plaintiff now brings this action against the manufacturers, sellers, and suppliers of the glass bottle.

I. INTRODUCTION ¿¿ ¿ On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff commenced this action. On May 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against Defendants, DS Services of America, Inc. and Primo Brands Corporation ("Primo"), asserting causes of action for, general negligence, products liability, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. ¿ On July 9, 2026, Primo filed this demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action. On August 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On September 3, 2026, Primo filed a reply.¿¿ ¿

II. LEGAL STANDARD ¿ ¿ A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)¿ When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true.¿ (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)¿ "Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice."¿ (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.)¿

III. DISCUSSION Primo demurs to the third cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and fourth cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because the FAC does not sufficiently allege privity between the parties. The court disagrees. Typically, "[v]ertical privity is a prerequisite in California for recovery on a theory of breach of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability." (United States Roofing, Inc. v. Credit Alliance Corp. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1431, 1441, internal citations omitted.)

However, "while privity is a prerequisite to maintaining an action for breach of warranty, there is an exception to the privity requirement in cases involving foodstuffs which hold that an implied warranty of fitness for human consumption runs from the manufacturer to the ultimate consumer, regardless of privity of contract ...." (Vassallo v. Sabatte Land Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 11, 17.) "[I]n cases involving personal injuries resulting from defective products, the theory of strict liability in tort has virtually superseded the concept of implied warranties." (Grinnell v.

Charles Pfizer & Co. (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 424, 432.) Vasallo is instructive. In Vassallo, the plaintiff was injured when a defective glass milk bottle was delivered to her home and shattered in her hand. The plaintiff suffered permanent injuries to her hand. (Id. at pp. 13-14.) The court expressly rejected the dairy company's argument that the plaintiff could not recover for lack of privity and held that the implied warranty extended to her under the personal injury exception. (Vassallo, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 17.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the bottle at issue contained drinking water and that he was "using one of the 5-gallon glass water bottles in an ordinary, intended, and reasonably foreseeable manner." (FAC, P.P. 7, 11.) As alleged, this case is on all fours with Vassallo. A glass bottle containing a consumable liquid shattered from ordinary use and caused injury to a person who had no contractual privity with the manufacturer of the bottle. The third and fourth causes of action do not fail for lack of privity.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is OVERRULED.¿ ¿ Defendant is ordered to serve and file its Answer to the FAC within 10 days of this order. Defendant to give notice, unless waived. Dated: September 10, 2026 | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court | Case Number: 26STCV12529 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: 407 Tentative Ruling Judge Brock T. Hammond, Department 407 HEARING DATE: September 10, 2026 TRIAL DATE: Not set CASE: Sona Dedeyan v. Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company