Andrew Leahy v. Nutribullet, LLC
2:19-cv-07376
C.D. Cal.Mar 12, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Leahy sued multiple defendants after allegedly being injured using a NutriBullet 600 blender purchased on Amazon from third‑party seller Jazzer Shack.
- NutriBullet (Nutribullet, LLC and Capital Brands) filed a cross‑complaint alleging Jazzer Shack sold counterfeit NutriBullet products and that the subject blender was a counterfeit unit not produced by NutriBullet.
- NutriBullet’s cross‑complaint pleads nine causes of action, including (1) equitable indemnity and (2) declaratory relief entitling NutriBullet to equitable relief.
- Jazzer Shack moved to dismiss the first two causes of action, arguing (a) if the blender is counterfeit NutriBullet cannot be liable to plaintiff and thus cannot seek indemnity, and (b) if the blender is genuine, Bailey v. Safeway bars equitable indemnity against a retailer.
- The district court denied the motion, holding NutriBullet may plead equitable indemnity and declaratory relief in the alternative and that Bailey does not bar the claim at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NutriBullet can plead equitable indemnity despite alleging the product was counterfeit (inconsistent theories) | Alternative inconsistent theories are permitted; indemnity can be pleaded in the alternative | Inconsistency defeats indemnity: if product counterfeit NutriBullet has no liability and thus no indemnity claim | Court: Permitted at pleading stage; Rule allows inconsistent alternative claims so dismissal denied |
| Whether Bailey v. Safeway precludes a manufacturer's equitable indemnity claim against a retailer at the pleading stage | Manufacturer may seek indemnity; no jury finding yet that retailer lacked independent fault | Bailey prohibits indemnity where retailer found not independently at fault, so claim should be dismissed now | Court: Bailey is inapplicable at pleading stage; whether retailer was independently at fault is a merits question; dismissal premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must raise claims above the speculative level)
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) (on Rule 12(b)(6) accept well‑pleaded facts as true)
- Gem Developers v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc., 213 Cal. App. 3d 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (equitable indemnity apportions loss among wrongdoers)
- American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578 (Cal. 1978) (supports equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors)
- Bailey v. Safeway, Inc., 199 Cal. App. 4th 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses limits on manufacturer indemnity where retailer was not independently at fault)
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest‑Kart, 21 Cal. 3d 322 (Cal. 1978) (manufacturer may seek indemnity where retailer is independently at fault)