Loh v. Future Motion, Inc.

Background

James Loh, Sean Michael Smith, Giovany Rico, and Bradley Reber sued Future Motion, Inc. over its Onewheel+ XR and Onewheel Pint electric skateboards. They alleged that the boards’ “pushback” warning system, sudden stopping, and “nosedive” behavior created safety risks and that Future Motion misrepresented the boards as safe, reliable, and free from defects. The plaintiffs asserted warranty, unjust-enrichment, false-advertising, and unfair-business-practice claims under California, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii law, including claims brought for proposed classes.

The plaintiffs alleged that each had purchased an Onewheel and experienced an abrupt stop or related incident that caused a fall or injury. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint described the alleged problems as involving the pushback safety mechanism, seizure or halting of the board, and nosediving.

Motion to dismiss

Future Motion moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It argued that the plaintiffs had not pleaded fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), had not identified an actual defect or nonconforming feature with enough specificity, and had not alleged reliance on a specific representation.

The court held that every claim in the complaint was “grounded in fraud” because all claims depended on the theory that Future Motion misrepresented or concealed information about the Onewheel’s safety and features. As a result, the entire complaint had to satisfy Rule 9(b), which requires specific details about the alleged misconduct, including who made the statement, what was said or concealed, when and where it occurred, and how it was fraudulent.

The court also found that the complaint did not adequately identify the alleged defect. Although it described problems with pushback, sudden stopping, and nosediving, it did not explain what feature of the pushback system was defective or what caused the alleged malfunctions. Because the Onewheel is complex machinery, the court required specific facts plausibly supporting the existence of a defect for which Future Motion was responsible and connecting that defect to the claimed injuries.

The court granted Future Motion’s motion to dismiss. It did not decide Future Motion’s separate argument concerning reliance because dismissal on the first two grounds resolved the motion.

Leave to amend and motion to strike

The court granted the dismissal with leave to amend, meaning the plaintiffs were allowed to try to correct the pleading defects. It stated that they could do so by alleging more particular facts about the Onewheel’s defects. The amended complaint was due by August 1, 2022. The order stated that failure to amend, or failure to cure the identified deficiencies, would result in dismissal of the claims with prejudice. The court also stated that the plaintiffs could not add new claims or parties without permission from the court or agreement by the parties.

Because the court granted the motion to dismiss, it dismissed Future Motion’s motion to strike as moot. The court therefore did not decide the motion to strike on its merits.