Wallace v. Sharkninja Operating, LLC

Background

This putative consumer class action concerns SharkNinja’s Ninja Professional Blender BL660. Unlike a traditional blender with blades at the bottom of the pitcher, the BL660 has a six-blade “Stacked Blade Assembly” mounted on a vertical column. The assembly is not permanently attached to the pitcher or lid and does not lock into place. The parties agreed that the design includes a system intended to keep the assembly centered and in place during normal operation.

Wallace alleged that this system malfunctions, causing the blade assembly to become dislodged while blending, including while the lid is properly secured. She alleged that users may then have to reach into the partially blended mixture or pour out the mixture with the blade assembly, exposing them to sudden contact with sharp blades. Wallace alleged that the assembly came loose on several occasions while she used her blender and that it cut her hand when she tried to reposition it. She also alleged that SharkNinja had known about the defect since at least 2012 based on testing data, consumer complaints, failure rates, replacement-part sales, and other sources.

Wallace asserted five counts: violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranty under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment. She asserted the claims for herself and proposed nationwide and California-related classes. SharkNinja moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim.

Judicial Notice

The court denied SharkNinja’s two requests for judicial notice without prejudice because the materials were not necessary to resolve the motion and the court did not rely on them.

Count 1: Consumers Legal Remedies Act

The court treated Wallace’s theory as fraudulent omission: SharkNinja allegedly failed to disclose the blender defect. Under the court’s description of California law, Wallace had to plausibly allege a design defect, an unreasonable safety hazard, and SharkNinja’s knowledge of the defect when the sale occurred.

The court rejected SharkNinja’s arguments that Wallace had not adequately identified the defect or alleged an unreasonable safety hazard. Wallace identified the alleged defect as the mechanism intended to keep the blade assembly centered and in place malfunctioning during normal blending. She did not need to identify the precise mechanical cause. The court also found plausible her allegations that the defect could expose users to unexpected laceration risks and could crack or shatter the pitcher.

The court nevertheless found that Wallace had not adequately pleaded SharkNinja’s pre-sale knowledge. Most of the consumer complaints she cited described explosions or other problems but did not identify the stacked blade assembly becoming dislodged. The one complaint that specifically described a blade becoming dislodged involved a different product, the Ninja Master Prep, and Wallace had not alleged that it was substantially similar to the BL660. The court also found that the 2015 revised safety warning did not establish knowledge of the alleged defect because Wallace’s complaint stated that the warning did not address blades dislodging while blending.

The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss Count 1 with leave to amend. The order states that Count 1 was dismissed with leave to amend.

Counts 3 and 4: Implied Warranty

The court denied the motion to dismiss Wallace’s implied-warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The court explained that the claims have the same substantive elements and that California law supplies the meaning and scope of the implied warranty for the federal claim.

Wallace plausibly alleged that a blender with sharp blades that become unsecured during operation is not safe, reliable, or fit for its ordinary purpose. The court rejected SharkNinja’s argument that the alleged injuries resulted only from using the product unsafely. Wallace alleged that when the defect occurred, users were forced to handle the blade assembly in an unsafe manner because safer methods were not available. The court also rejected the argument that the defect did not occur often enough to matter, noting Wallace’s allegation that the assembly came loose on several occasions and that the defect allegedly posed a serious bodily-injury risk.

Count 2: Unfair Competition Law

The court allowed Count 2 to proceed only insofar as it was based on alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Because the court found the warranty claims adequately pleaded, Wallace could predicate an “unlawful” unfair-competition claim on those alleged violations.

The court rejected the other UCL theories. The theory based on the Consumers Legal Remedies Act failed because Count 1 was inadequately pleaded. The theory based on California’s False Advertising Law failed because Wallace had not adequately alleged SharkNinja’s duty to disclose, which depended on knowledge of the defect. The fraudulent and unfair UCL theories also failed for the same lack of adequately pleaded knowledge and duty to disclose.

Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss Count 2 to the extent it was based on violations of the Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss Acts, and otherwise granted the motion with leave to amend.

Count 5: Unjust Enrichment

The court denied the motion to dismiss Count 5. SharkNinja argued that Wallace could not pursue unjust enrichment because any successful legal claims would provide full compensation. The court held that, at the pleading stage, a plaintiff may pursue alternative claims and that dismissal as duplicative of legal claims was improper on this record. SharkNinja had not otherwise challenged the sufficiency of the unjust-enrichment allegations.

Equitable Relief

The court granted the motion to dismiss the prayers for equitable relief with leave to amend. The general request for equitable relief under Count 1 did not survive the dismissal of that count. The court also dismissed Wallace’s request for an injunction because her allegation that she “would consider” buying a Ninja blender in the future did not show an actual or imminent threat of future harm sufficient to establish standing for prospective injunctive relief.

Nationwide Class Allegations

The court denied SharkNinja’s request to dismiss the nationwide class allegations. The court recognized that differences among state laws might eventually prevent certification of a nationwide class, but held that resolving those choice-of-law issues would require a detailed, fact-intensive inquiry. The court concluded that the issue was better addressed at the class-certification stage rather than on a motion to dismiss.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, it granted the motion to dismiss Count 1 with leave to amend; denied the motion as to Counts 3 and 4; denied the motion as to Count 2 insofar as it was based on the Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss Acts and otherwise granted it with leave to amend; denied the motion as to Count 5; granted the motion to dismiss the prayers for equitable relief with leave to amend; and denied the motion to dismiss the nationwide class allegations. Any amended complaint was due April 3, 2020, and amendment was restricted to the defects discussed in the order and SharkNinja’s motion unless the court gave prior express permission to add parties or claims.