throbber
Case 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`THERESA THOM, an individual,
` Case No.:
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
`
`JURY 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
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`NEUTRON HOLDINGS. INC, d/b/a
`LIME, a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, THERESA THOM (hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and
`through her 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
`
`1
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`(hereafter referred to as “Defendant Lime”) alleges the following upon personal
`knowledge and belief, and investigation of counsel:
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`Defendant Lime is a company that deploys electronic scooters into
`1.
`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
`an equipment failure.
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the city of Troy, County of
`4.
`Oakland, State of Michigan.
`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 2121 South El Camino Real, Suite B100, Fremont,
`California 94403.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant
`7.
`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.
`
`
`
`
` 2
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`9.
`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.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`10. 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.
`11.
` 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.
`12. 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
`13. 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
`
`
`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
`September 21, 2021).
`2 See https://www.lime/second-street/safety-update-february-2019 (last accessed September 21,
`2021) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
` 3
`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 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`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.”
`14. On October 13, 2019, Plaintiff was attending a music festival in
`Corpus Christi, Texas.
`15. After the festival was over, Plaintiff rented a Lime scooter.
`16. While using the scooter, the throttle became stuck in the locked
`position, and the scooter accelerated to full speed.
`17. Plaintiff was unable to stop the scooter and hit a crack in the
`pavement; causing her to be thrown forward and severely injuring her left
`wrist and hand, which ultimately required surgery.
`18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lime’s electronic scooters
`are manufactured with inadequate safety features.
`19. 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.
`20. 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.
`21. 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.
`22. Upon information and belief, the Lime scooters are defective, as
`manufactured and designed, or not properly maintained, leading to a
`dangerous nuisance.
`
`
`
`
` 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 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`23. 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.
`24. 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:
`25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
`paragraph as though set forth fully at length herein.
`26. At the time of Plaintiff’s injuries, Defendant’s scooters were
`defective and unreasonably dangerous for use by foreseeable consumers,
`including Plaintiff.
`27. Defendant’s scooters were in the same or substantially similar
`condition as when they left the possession of the Defendant.
`28. Plaintiff did not misuse or materially alter the scooter.
`29. The scooters did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer
`would have expected them to perform when used in a reasonably foreseeable
`way.
`
`30. Further, a reasonable person would conclude that the possibility
`and serious of harm outweighs the burden or cost of making the scooters safe.
`31. Defendant’s actions and omissions were the direct and proximate
`cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
`32. Defendant’s conduct, as described above, was extreme and
`outrageous. Defendant risked the safety and well-being of the consumers and
`
`
`
`
` 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 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`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:
`33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
`paragraph as though set forth fully at length herein.
`34. 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.
`35. Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the manufacture,
`sale, warnings, quality assurance, quality control, distribution, advertising,
`promotion and marketing of its 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.
`36. 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
`
`
`
`
` 6
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`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:
`37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
`paragraph as though set forth fully at length herein.
`38. 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.
`39. Members of the consuming public, including consumers such as
`Plaintiff, were intended third-party beneficiaries of the warranty.
`40. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant’s representations that its
`scooters were an environmentally friendly transportation without the
`headache of traffic.
`41. Defendant’s scooters were not merchantable because they had the
`propensity to lead to the serious personal injuries as described herein in this
`Complaint.
`42. 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.
`43. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`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 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`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:
`44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
`paragraph as though set forth fully at length herein.
`45. 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.
`46. Members of the consuming public, including consumers such as
`Plaintiff, were the intended third-party beneficiaries of the warranty.
`47. 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.
`48. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant’s representations that its
`scooters were an environmentally friendly transportation without the
`headache of traffic.
`49. 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
`50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence and
`wrongful misconduct as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will
`
`
`
`
` 8
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries and damages including past,
`present, and future physical and emotional pain and suffering as a result of
`the incident on or about October 13, 2019. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
`damages from Defendant for these injuries in an amount which shall be
`proven at trial.
`51. 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 October 13, 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.
`52. 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 she suffered on or about October 13, 2019. Plaintiff is entitled
`to recover damages from Defendant for her 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.
`B.
`
`That Plaintiff has a trial by jury on all of the claims and issues;
`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;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
` 9
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`E.
`F.
`
`That prejudgment interest be awarded according to proof; and
`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: _____________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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: akress@johnsonbecker.com
`
` 10
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`09/21/2021
`
`/s/ Jordon R. Harlan
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07332-SK Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________
`Jordon R. Harlan, Esq. (CA #273978)
`
`
`HARLAN LAW, P.C.
`
`
`
`
` 11
`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
`
`
`09/21/2021
`
`/s/ Jordon R. Harlan
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket