Harrison v. IFit Health & Fitness

Background

Patrina Harrison proceeded without a lawyer and alleged that she suffers from asthma and allergies. She purchased a Nordic Track 2450 Commercial treadmill from Dick’s Sporting Goods on January 16, 2021. After it was delivered and assembled, she alleged that the treadmill emitted hot, steaming chemical fumes during her first exercise session. She said the fumes caused shortness of breath, coughing, throat irritation, dizziness, burning eyes, and burning nostrils, and that the odor filled her apartment.

Harrison arranged to return the treadmill and paid expenses connected with delivery and its removal. She later purchased a Freemotion treadmill and an extended service plan, but alleged that the plan paperwork applied to the earlier treadmill and that the plan would not cover the second-hand treadmill she retained.

The first amended complaint asserted claims for manufacturing defect, negligent failure to warn, strict liability for inadequate warnings, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Harrison alleged $578,000 in lost profits from losing a legal document assistant service contract, $85,000 in non-economic damages, $450,000 in punitive damages, and $1,722 in out-of-pocket expenses.

Jurisdiction and the Motion to Dismiss

Defendant iFit, Inc. moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. The court focused on diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. The court expressly stated that it did not reach the merits of Harrison’s claims.

The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege iFit’s citizenship. A corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. Harrison alleged only that iFit was a “resident” of Utah, which did not identify both required citizenships. Harrison did not address this argument.

The court also held that Harrison had not plausibly shown that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It found the alleged $578,000 in lost profits too speculative because the complaint provided little detail about the contract and did not allege an established business that could have been injured. The court also found the $85,000 claim for non-economic damages unsupported and unrealistic in context. Harrison’s earlier letter seeking between $25,000 and $50,000 further undermined the larger amount later alleged.

The court declined to include the claimed punitive damages in the amount-in-controversy calculation for two independent reasons. The product-liability allegations described iFit’s conduct as negligent and did not allege oppression, fraud, or malice as required under California law. Harrison also supplied no evidence supporting the requested $450,000 punitive-damage amount, such as verdicts in comparable cases. The court noted that breach-of-contract and section 17200 claims could not support punitive damages.

Ruling

The court granted defendant iFit’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It found that Harrison had not established subject-matter jurisdiction because she had not adequately alleged complete diversity and had not shown a realistic amount in controversy above $75,000. Because she had already been given an opportunity to amend on the same issue, the court found further amendment of the jurisdictional allegations would be futile and did not grant leave to file another amended complaint.

The first amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton did not decide whether Harrison’s substantive claims were valid.