Loh v. Future Motion, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-06088
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Loh v. Future Motion, Judge Davila ordered the parties to explain why two similar consumer cases should not be consolidated.
The plaintiffs in the two proposed consumer class actions, Future Motion, Inc., and the parties involved in any other related cases before the court.
What happened
Loh v. Future Motion, Inc. and a related case both involve proposed consumer class claims against Future Motion over alleged defects in its motorized single-wheeled skateboards. The plaintiffs allege that the boards can suddenly stop, lock their wheels, and throw riders off.
The court found that the cases may share legal or factual questions. It directed any party opposing consolidation to file a written statement, allowed replies, and permitted the parties to submit a joint agreement to consolidate. The court also required Future Motion to identify any other related cases before another judge and address whether consolidation might be appropriate.
Judge Edward J. Davila issued an order to show cause regarding consolidation on June 7, 2022. The order did not decide whether the cases would ultimately be consolidated.
The detailed version
- Loh v. Future Motion, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-06088
- Beth Freeman
- June 7, 2022
Background
The order addresses two cases: James Loh and other plaintiffs' case, No. 21-cv-06088-EJD, and Isaac Jacobson's case, No. 21-cv-08092-EJD. The plaintiffs assert various consumer claims on behalf of proposed classes against Future Motion, Inc. Both cases include claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Both cases allege similar defects in Future Motion's motorized single-wheeled skateboards. According to the order, the alleged defect can cause the electric motor to shut off and the wheels to lock without noticeable warning, bringing the board to a complete halt and often throwing the rider off.
Order regarding consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits a district court to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. The court stated that these actions may contain at least one common question of law or fact and ordered the parties to show cause—meaning to explain—why the cases should not be consolidated for pretrial proceedings or trial.
Any party opposing consolidation was directed to file a written statement of no more than 10 pages by June 16, 2022. Replies and other statements supporting consolidation were due by June 23, 2022, after which the court would take the matter under submission. The parties could instead file a joint stipulation for consolidation by June 16, 2022.
The court also directed Future Motion to identify in its response any other related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of the court and involving Future Motion. If such cases existed, Future Motion was required to address whether consolidation with them might be appropriate under Rule 42(a).
Disposition and effect
The order is an order to show cause regarding possible consolidation. It does not state that the cases were consolidated or decide the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.