Harrison v. IFit Health & Fitness

Background

Patrina Harrison alleged that she bought a Nordic Track 2450 Commercial treadmill for home exercise on January 16, 2021. She alleged that, during her first exercise session after delivery, the treadmill emitted hot, steaming chemical odors that caused shortness of breath, coughing, throat and eye irritation, dizziness, and other symptoms. She later returned the treadmill and bought another treadmill.

Harrison brought claims for manufacturing defect, negligence based on a failure to warn, strict liability based on inadequate warnings, breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, and violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, commonly called the Unfair Competition Law. She represented herself in the case. iFit, Inc. moved to dismiss, arguing in part that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the complaint did not adequately state its claims.

Jurisdiction and Damages

The court considered diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear a dispute between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in controversy. iFit’s Utah location was uncontested, but the court found that Harrison’s alleged damages did not meet the $75,000 threshold.

The complaint identified $634 in economic loss and did not clearly request compensatory damages or medical expenses in its prayer for relief. Even considering the listed treadmill, delivery, tip, return, and service-plan expenses, the total reached only $5,484.48. Harrison later referred in her opposition to $2 million in damages, but the court found that this figure was unsupported by the complaint. The court also found that her statements about emotional distress and medical expenses lacked facts about medical treatment, its duration, or whether her symptoms were temporary.

Punitive Damages

The court explained that punitive damages may count toward the amount in controversy if state law allows them based on the alleged conduct and the plaintiff provides a basis for the amount sought. Under California law, punitive damages require allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice. The court found that Harrison alleged injuries and repeatedly described iFit’s conduct as negligent, but did not allege that iFit acted willfully or consciously disregarded her rights or safety. The court therefore found the punitive-damages request insufficiently pleaded and did not include it in the jurisdictional calculation.

Unfair Competition Law Claim

The court separately addressed Harrison’s fraud-based theory under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity, requires allegations identifying the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged misconduct. The court found that Harrison’s allegations about misrepresentations concerning an extended service plan did not provide those details. It therefore found the UCL claim insufficiently pleaded.

Disposition

The court granted iFit’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to explain how the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and, if Harrison renewed the fraud-based UCL claim, provide the required specific details. The amended complaint was due by June 10, 2022. The court stated that no additional parties or claims could be added without the court’s permission or iFit’s stipulation.