Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Jordon Harlan, Esq. (CA #273978)
`HARLAN LAW, P.C.
`2404 Broadway, 2nd Floor
`San Diego, CA 92102
`Telephone: (619) 870-0802
`Fax: (619) 870-0815
`Email: jordon@harlanpc.com
`
`Adam J. Kress, Esq. (MN #0397289)
`Pro Hac Vice to be filed
`JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
`444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
`St. Paul, MN 55101
`Telephone: (612) 436-1800
`Fax: (612) 436-1801
`Email: kpearson@johnsonbecker.com
`Email: akress@johnsonbecker.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`NEUTRON HOLDINGS. INC, d/b/a LIME,
`a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`DANIEL JOSE DURON, an individual,
` Case No.:
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`Plaintiff,
`TRIAL
`
`
`1. Strict Products Liability
`
`2. Negligent Products Liability
`
`3. Breach of Implied Warranty of
` Merchantability
`
`4. Breach of Implied Warranty of
` Fitness For a Particular Purpose
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, DANIEL JOSE DURON (hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and through
`his undersigned counsel, JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC and HARLAN LAW, P.C., hereby
`submits the following Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant NEUTRON
`HOLDINGS. INC., d/b/a LIME (hereafter referred to as “Defendant Lime”) alleges the
`following upon personal knowledge and belief, and investigation of counsel:
`
`1
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`1.
`Defendant Lime is a company that deploys electronic scooters into the public under
`the guise of environmentally friendly transportation without the headache of traffic.
`2.
`However, since Defendant Lime’s deployment of electronic scooters in late 2017
`and early 2018, there have been numerous reports of injuries suffered because of equipment
`failures, including instances of the scooters suddenly breaking in half while in use.
`3.
`As outlined below, the Plaintiff in this case was the victim of such equipment
`failure.
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the city of Lubbock, County of Lubbock, State
`
`4.
`of Texas.
`5.
`Defendant Lime is a company that deploys electronic scooters into the public under
`the guise of environmentally friendly transportation without the headache of traffic.
`6.
`Defendant Lime is Delaware Corporation, with a principal business address of 85
`2nd Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3400.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`7.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to diversity
`jurisdiction prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
`value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity between the
`parties.
`8.
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant
`Lime is a resident of this district.
`9.
`Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant
`has sufficient minimum contacts with the State of California and has intentionally availed itself of
`the markets within California through the promotion, sale, marketing, and distribution of its
`products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`10.
`On Sunday, June 9, 2019, Plaintiff was attending the Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma
`State super regional baseball game with his aunt and uncle.
`11.
`After the game was over, Plaintiff rented a Lime scooter and used it to go meet
`some friends. After spending some time with his friends, Plaintiff rented a second Lime scooter to
`take himself back to his car which was still on campus.
`12.
`During the ride to his vehicle, the Lime scooter Plaintiff was riding suddenly broke
`in half at the base where the footboard, causing significant orthopedic injuries to his right foot and
`right ankle.
`13.
`Since Defendant Lime’s deployment of electronic scooters in late 2017 and early
`2018, there have been numerous reports of injuries suffered as a result of equipment failures.
`14.
` On October 31, 2018, Defendant Lime issued a recall on about 2,000 Segway-
`made Ninebot scooters after reports that some were catching on fire. The company said it was
`investigating the "unconfirmed" incidents in at least three cities.
`15.
`Less than a month later, Defendant Lime issued a second recall after receiving
`reports that some of its models were breaking in half; stating that “it was “looking into reports that
`scooters manufactured by Okai may break and [that it is] working cooperatively with the U.S.
`Consumer Product Safety Commission and the relevant authorities internationally” and that it
`would “decommission all Okai scooter is use” but failed to provide a precise number of the
`affected scooters.1
`16.
`On February 23, 2019, Defendant Lime acknowledged a third problem; this time a
`“bug in the firmware” of its scooters that “could under ‘rare circumstances’ cause sudden and
`excessive braking during use.”2 Defendant Lime went on to state that “some riders have been
`injured, and, although most have been ‘bumps and bruises’, any injury is one too many.”
`
`
`1 See https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/10/electric-scooter-giant-lime-
`launches-global-recall-one-its-models-amid-fears-scooters-can-break-apart/ (last accessed June 3,
`2021).
`2 See https://www.lime/second-street/safety-update-february-2019 (last accessed June 3, 2021)
`
`
`
`
` 3
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`17.
`information and belief, Defendant Lime’s electronic scooters are
`Upon
`manufactured with inadequate safety features.
`18.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Lime does not properly maintain the
`scooters, but deploys its scooters into the public and takes no measures to inspect and maintain the
`scooters.
`19.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Lime employs "juicers" to pick up the
`Lime scooters and charge them at their own residence, eventually putting the scooter back into
`public rotation when charged.
`20.
`Upon information and belief, the Defendant Lime ''juicers" are not paid by Lime
`until they charge the scooter and deploy it back into rotation, at a "LimeHub." Upon information
`and belief, the Lime "juicers" are not paid if they inform Lime that the scooter is defective and do
`not place the scooter back into rotation. Upon information and belief, the "juicers" are not
`employed to maintain the scooters.
`21.
`Upon information and belief, the Lime scooters are defective, as manufactured and
`designed, or not properly maintained, leading to a dangerous nuisance.
`22.
`Upon information and belief, riders, such as the Plaintiff in this case, are unaware
`of the clear failure to maintain the scooters, the defective nature of the scooters, and the dangers
`associated with the scooters, are seriously injured upon using the scooters.
`23.
`Upon information and belief, Lime fails to provide adequate warnings and
`operational instructions.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`PLAINTIFF, FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGANST NEUTRON HOLDINGS,
`
`INC., ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
`24.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
`though set forth fully at length herein.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`25.
`At the time of Plaintiff’s injuries, Defendant’s scooters were defective and
`unreasonably dangerous for use by foreseeable consumers, including Plaintiff.
`26.
`Defendant’s scooters were in the same or substantially similar condition as when
`they left the possession of the Defendant.
`27.
`Plaintiff did not misuse or materially alter the scooter.
`28.
`The scooters did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have
`expected them to perform when used in a reasonably foreseeable way.
`29.
`Further, a reasonable person would conclude that the possibility and serious of
`harm outweighs the burden or cost of making the scooters safe.
`30.
`Defendant’s actions and omissions were the direct and proximate cause of the
`Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
`31.
`Defendant’s conduct, as described above, was extreme and outrageous. Defendant
`risked the safety and well-being of the consumers and users of its scooters, including the Plaintiff
`to this action, with the knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems.
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together
`with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`PLAINTIFF, FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGANST NEUTRON
`
`HOLDINGS, INC., ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
`32.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
`though set forth fully at length herein.
`33.
`Defendant had a duty of reasonable care to design, manufacture, market, and sell
`non-defective scooters that are reasonably safe for its intended uses by consumers, such as
`Plaintiff.
`34.
`Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the manufacture, sale, warnings,
`quality assurance, quality control, distribution, advertising, promotion and marketing of its
`
`
`
`
` 5
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`scooters in that Defendant knew or should have known that said scooters created a high risk of
`unreasonable harm to the Plaintiff and consumers alike.
`35.
`Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture, advertising, warning and
`marketing of its scooters in that, among other things, they:
`a. Failed to use due care in designing and manufacturing the scooters to avoid the
`aforementioned risks to individuals;
`b. Placed an unsafe product into the stream of commerce;
`c. Aggressively over-promoted and marketed its scooters; and
`d. Were otherwise careless or negligent.
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together
`with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`PLAINTIFF, FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGANST NEUTRON HOLDINGS,
`
`INC., ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
`36.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
`though set forth fully at length herein.
`37.
`At the time Defendant marketed and distributed its scooters to the Plaintiff in this
`case, Defendant warranted that its scooters were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for
`which they were intended.
`38. Members of the consuming public, including consumers such as Plaintiff, were
`intended third-party beneficiaries of the warranty.
`39.
`Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant’s representations that its scooters were an
`environmentally friendly transportation without the headache of traffic.
`40.
`Defendant’s scooters were not merchantable because they had the propensity to
`lead to the serious personal injuries as described herein in this Complaint.
`
`
`
`
` 6
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`41.
`Plaintiff used the scooter with the reasonable expectation that it was properly
`designed and manufactured, free from defects of any kind, and that it was safe for its intended,
`foreseeable use of transportation.
`42.
`Defendant’s breach of implied warranty of merchantability was the direct and
`proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury and damages.
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together
`with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
`PLAINTIFF, FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGANST NEUTRON
`
`HOLDINGS, INC., ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
`43.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
`though set forth fully at length herein.
`44.
`Defendant manufactured and supplied its scooters with an implied warranty that
`they were fit for the particular purpose of a safe and cost-effective means of transportation.
`45. Members of the consuming public, including consumers such as Plaintiff, were the
`intended third-party beneficiaries of the warranty.
`46.
`Defendant’s scooters were not fit for the particular purpose as a safe means of
`transportation, due to the unreasonable risks of bodily injury associated with its use.
`47.
`Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant’s representations that its scooters were an
`environmentally friendly transportation without the headache of traffic.
`48.
`Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was
`the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for, together with interest,
`costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
`INJURIES & DAMAGES
`49.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and wrongful
`misconduct as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer physical and
`
`
`
`
` 7
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`emotional injuries and damages including past, present, and future physical and emotional pain
`and suffering as a result of the incident on or about June 9, 2019. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
`damages from Defendant for these injuries in an amount which shall be proven at trial.
`50.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and wrongful
`misconduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur the loss of full
`enjoyment of life and disfigurement as a result of the incident on or about June 9, 2019. Plaintiff
`is entitled to recover damages for loss of the full enjoyment of life and disfigurement from
`Defendant in an amount to be proven at trial.
`51.
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence and wrongful
`misconduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiff has and will continue to incur expenses for medical care
`and treatment, as well as other expenses, as a result of injuries he suffered on or about June 9,
`2019. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for his past, present and future
`medical and other expenses in an amount which shall be proven at trial.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant as follows:
`A.
`That Plaintiff has a trial by jury on all of the claims and issues;
`B.
`That judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant on all of
`the aforementioned claims and issues;
`That Plaintiff recover all damages against Defendant, general damages and special
`damages, including economic and non-economic, to compensate the Plaintiff for
`his injuries and suffering sustained because of the use of the Defendant’s defective
`scooter;
`That all costs be taxed against Defendant;
`That prejudgment interest be awarded according to proof; and
`
`D.
`E.
`
`C.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`
` 8
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04246-KAW Document 1 Filed 06/03/21 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`F.
`
`
`
`That this Court awards any other relief that it may deem equitable and just, or that
`may be available under the law of another forum to the extent the law of another
`forum is applied, including but not limited to all reliefs prayed for in this Complaint
`and in the foregoing Prayer for Relief.
`
`
`Dated: June 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HARLAN LAW, PC
`
`By: _____________________
`Jordon R. Harlan, Esq.
`
`In association with:
`
`JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
`
`Adam J. Kress, Esq. (MN #0397289)
`Pro Hac Vice to be filed
`444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
`St. Paul, MN 55101
`Telephone: (612) 436-1800
`Fax: (612) 436-1801
`Email: kpearson@johnsonbecker.com
`Email: akress@johnsonbecker.com
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all the
`claims asserted in this Complaint so triable.
`
`
`Dated: June 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`HARLAN LAW, P.C.
`
`______________________________
`Jordon Harlan, Esq. (CA #273978)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`/s/ Jordon R. Harlan
`
`/s/ Jordon R. Harlan
`
`