5:23-md-03087
N.D. Cal.Jul 12, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs in this putative class action and member case of an MDL allege that all models of the Onewheel motorized skateboard—manufactured and sold by Future Motion, Inc.—possess a design defect (the "Nosedive Defect") that abruptly ejects riders, causing injury.
- Plaintiffs contend the company marketed Onewheel as a safe "toy" without adequately warning of risks and failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect, despite learning of it via testing, data from its app, consumer complaints, and third-party products.
- Defendant disagreed with safety warnings from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and declined to recall or revise its warnings.
- Plaintiffs assert 30 state and nationwide claims, including breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission, and violations of consumer protection statutes.
- The court addressed Defendant’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and to strike class allegations; earlier, the case had been through several amendments and a prior dismissal for insufficient specificity.
- The instant order rules on Defendant’s renewed motions (post-consolidation and reassignment), focusing on the sufficiency of defect allegations, misrepresentation, omission, reliance, and class action issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of defect allegation | Sufficiently alleged design and component defects | "Nosedive" is an effect, allegations are too vague/overbroad | Dismissed with leave to amend; must specify defect with more clarity |
| Pleading standard (Rule 9(b) vs 8(a)) | Warranty/design defect claims not fraud, so Rule 8(a) applies | All claims sound in fraud, so Rule 9(b) applies | Rule 9(b) applies to all claims |
| Affirmative misrepresentations | Specifically alleged actionable safety claims | Statements are general puffery, not actionable | Plaintiff pled actionable misstatements; motion denied on this point |
| Omission/duty to disclose | Failure to disclose material safety risk supports liability | No exclusive knowledge or knowing omission of a known defect | Dismissed with leave to amend; need facts showing Defendant had knowledge |
| Reliance | Alleged general reliance on Defendant’s marketing | Plaintiffs must plead specific facts showing reliance | Dismissed with leave to amend for insufficient particularity |
| Breach of express warranty | Conceded claims not viable | - | Dismissed without leave to amend |
| Implied warranty of merchantability | Alleged Onewheel is unsafe for ordinary use | Failed to allege product unfitness for ordinary purpose | Motion to dismiss denied on implied warranty claims |
| Breach of contract | Elements met; alternative pleading permissible | Not alleged with specificity; claim barred by economic loss rule | Dismissed with leave to amend for clarification |
| Unjust enrichment | No substantive briefing | Insufficient defect and knowledge allegations | Dismissed with leave to amend |
| Motion to strike class allegations | Premature; allegations plausible and uniformity adequately pled | No uniform defect/misrepresentation; Mazza choice-of-law applies | Denied without prejudice; may re-raise at class certification stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standard for facial plausibility in pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (legal sufficiency of a claim on motion to dismiss)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) applies to claims sounding in fraud)
- Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Off. Sol., 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (puffery vs. actionable misstatements)
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (need to allege actual defect, not just effect)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (reliance in UCL/FAL/CLRA claims)
- LiMandri v. Judkins, 52 Cal. App. 4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (duty to disclose in omission claims)