Wallace v. Sharkninja Operating, LLC

Background

This putative class action concerns blenders manufactured and distributed by SharkNinja. The blenders use a “Stacked Blade Assembly” with multiple sharp blades mounted at different heights. Wallace alleged that the assembly could improperly dislodge during blending, potentially cracking or shattering the assembly or pitcher. In the third amended complaint, she alleged that over-pressurization while blending thicker materials, such as ice or frozen fruit, could push up the lid, dislodge the blade assembly, or cause the pitcher to explode. She also alleged that plastic components wore down quickly and that customer complaints showed the defect.

The earlier version of the complaint alleged only that the blade assembly did not lock into place. After the court dismissed that version, Wallace revised her allegations to identify dislodging during normal operation as the alleged defect. The court previously allowed most claims to proceed but dismissed the claim under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), parts of the claim under California’s unfair competition law (UCL), and the request for injunctive relief, while allowing amendment.

Motion and Arguments

SharkNinja moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim. It argued that Wallace had abandoned any claim based on affirmative misrepresentations; that her fraudulent-omission claims under the CLRA and the fraud prong of the UCL still did not adequately allege that SharkNinja knew about the defect before her purchase; that the UCL unfair-prong claim remained deficient; and that the injunctive-relief claim should be dismissed. SharkNinja also asked the court to strike allegations it characterized as irrelevant or outside the permitted scope of amendment.

Wallace agreed that she was pursuing a fraudulent-omission theory rather than a separate misrepresentation theory, but argued that the references to SharkNinja’s representations provided context. She argued that allegations about complaints submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, SharkNinja’s social-media accounts, and retailer websites supported pre-sale knowledge. She also argued that the UCL unfair-prong claim was adequately pleaded. She did not oppose the request concerning injunctive relief.

Court’s Analysis

The court granted SharkNinja’s motion as to claims based on alleged misrepresentations. It concluded that Wallace had previously abandoned a fraudulent-omission theory based on partial representations and had not identified a representation contrary to the alleged defect. The statement that the blender could pulverize ice into snow did not, in the court’s view, tell a reasonable consumer that the pitcher and blades were secured together as one unit.

The court denied the motion as to the CLRA claim. It had previously required Wallace to plead the defect, an unreasonable safety hazard, and SharkNinja’s knowledge of the defect before her purchase. The court determined that the third amended complaint adequately alleged pre-sale knowledge through multiple dated complaints, including complaints concerning cracking, exploding, shattered parts, and blades flying off during use. It also credited allegations that SharkNinja responded to online complaints, moved some conversations into private messages, and removed older posts. At the pleading stage, the court found those allegations sufficient to support a reasonable inference that SharkNinja knew about the defect before Wallace’s March 2018 purchase.

Because the court found the fraudulent-omission theory adequately pleaded for the CLRA claim, it also denied the motion as to the UCL fraud-prong claim and the UCL unfair-prong claim. The court denied the request to dismiss or strike the additional defect allegations, finding that they were within the scope of the permitted amendment or relevant to the fraudulent-omission claims. It noted that the sufficiency of those allegations could be challenged on a more developed record.

The court granted the motion as to the claim for injunctive relief, without leave to amend. Wallace had not added allegations showing a likelihood of future injury and did not respond to this portion of the motion; the court therefore found that she had waived that claim.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that SharkNinja’s motion to dismiss be granted in part, without leave to amend, as to claims based on a theory of fraudulent misrepresentation and as to the claim for injunctive relief. The motion was denied as to Claim 1 under the CLRA and Claim 2 under the UCL. The motion to strike was also denied. SharkNinja was ordered to answer the third amended complaint by December 7, 2020.