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
`
`
`IAN PANCER (Cal. Bar No. 246600)
`The Law Office of Ian Pancer
`105 West F St., 4th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: (619) 955-6644
`Facsimile: (619) 374-7410
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Taranjot Samra
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
`
`CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`
`TARANJOT SAMRA, an individual,
`
`Case No.:
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`BIRD RIDES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
`DOES 1-20, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`1. STRICT LIABILITY: DESIGN DEFECT
`2. STRICT LIABILITY:
`MANUFACTURING DEFECT
`3. STIRICT LIABILITY: FAILURE TO
`ADEQUATELY WARN
`4. NEGLIGENCE
`5. GROSS NEGLIGENCE
`6. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
`7. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
`8. UNFAIR COMPETITION – BUSINESS
`AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION
`17200, ET SEQ.
`9. FALSE ADVERTISING – BUSINESS
`AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION
`17500, ET SEQ.
`10. CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
`– CIVIL CODE SECTION 1770, ET
`SEQ.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`1
`
`

`

`
`Plaintiff Taranjot Samra (hereafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual and a resident of San Diego
`1.
`County, California.
`Defendant Bird Rides, Inc. (hereinafter, “Bird Rides” or “Defendant”) is a Delaware
`2.
`corporation.
`PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendant sued herein as
`3.
`DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendant by such fictitious names.
`PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of these fictitiously
`4.
`named Defendant is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that
`Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. Plaintiff will amend
`this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendant when ascertained.
`JURISDICTION
`Plaintiff resides in and was injured in the County of San Diego, California (“San Diego
`5.
`County”).
`Defendant caused the events giving rise to this case to occur in San Diego County.
`6.
`7.
`Defendant does business in and has substantial ties to San Diego County.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND DAMAGES
`Defendant Bird Rides is a dockless electric scooter rental company operating in more than 100
`8.
`cities in North America and Europe.
`Plaintiff suffered serious injuries while using a defective and dangerous scooter that was
`9.
`manufactured, ordered and made available for rent by Bird Rides.
`Customers of Bird Rides’ electric scooter rental service are able to unlock individual scooters
`10.
`through a smartphone application and rent the scooters for use measured in cost per distance.
`Bird Rides deploys scooters on the campus of the University of California at San Diego
`11.
`(“UCSD”).
`Plaintiff is an undergraduate student at UCSD.
`12.
`13.
`He is pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree in cognitive science with an emphasis in machine
`learning and neural computation.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`2
`
`

`

`
`On November 9, 2018, after getting out of a class at UCSD, Plaintiff sought to unlock and rent
`14.
`a Bird Rides scooter for transportation across the campus.
`Plaintiff initially attempted to rent a Bird Rides scooter at 9:49 a.m. The ride history recorded
`15.
`on Plaintiff’s Bird Rides’ app shows this attempted ride cost $1.00, lasted for zero minutes, and went
`for zero miles.
`Following this initial unsuccessful attempt, Plaintiff succeeded in renting a different Bird
`16.
`Rides scooter on November 9, 2018 at 9:50 a.m. The rental history recorded on Plaintiff’s Bird Rides
`app shows this ride cost $2.20, lasted eight (8) minutes, and went for one mile.
`17. While Plaintiff was riding the Bird Rides scooter, without any input or action by the Plaintiff,
`the scooter abruptly stopped, causing Plaintiff to fall off the scooter, strike the pavement, and suffer
`serious injury.
`Plaintiffs’ injuries include, without limitation, broken teeth and sinuses that were fractured in
`18.
`numerous places. The sinus fractures have necessitated multiple surgeries and resulted in chronic
`bacterial and fungal infections. The injuries have also injured Plaintiffs’ sense of smell and taste, and
`have caused a dryness in the sinuses that will afflict Plaintiff for the rest of his life.
`As a further result of the chronic sinus infections, Plaintiff will be required to undergo a
`19.
`course of steroid treatment to last approximately two years, in addition to the numerous courses of
`antibiotics and painkillers he has already suffered through. During the series of sinus infections
`suffered by plaintiff, and also during and after the surgeries, Plaintiff suffered from a discharge from
`his sinuses of a great deal of blood and viscous substances with the consistency of molasses.
`In addition, Plaintiff has suffered a great deal of pain, pain-induced sleeplessness, and constant
`20.
`pounding headaches.
`As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff has missed a great deal of work and lost wages that are
`21.
`substantial to him.
`
`THE COVER UP – SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE
`On November 20, 2018, counsel for Plaintiff sent written correspondence to Bird Rides by
`22.
`overnight delivery, which Bird Rides received on November 21, 2018. The correspondence demanded
`that Bird Rides preserve and make available for inspection the scooters referred to herein.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`3
`
`

`

`
`Bird Rides failed to preserve the scooters and make them available for inspection. After
`23.
`spoiling evidence by secreting, destroying, and/or putting the scooters beyond Plaintiff’s reach, Bird
`Rides has now taken the following untenable, unreasonable and morally blameworthy position, which
`was expressed in a written correspondence to your undersigned on April 24, 2019:
`
`24. When your undersi
`
`
`Defendant has manufactured and continues to manufacture, distribute, sell, and rent dangerous
`25.
`and defective electric scooters to consumers. Defendant knows that the inferiority and unreliability of
`the components used and processes employed in the manufacturing of the scooters make the scooters
`unsuitable for use and certain to cause serious injury to riders when used cautiously and prudently, in
`an intended and reasonably foreseeable way. Nonetheless, Defendant continues to use the
`components and processes in question because Defendant is thereby able to minimize their costs of
`goods sold and maximize their profits. Defendant enjoys these profits at the cost of great injury and
`suffering to their consumers, including Plaintiff.
`PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS
`Defendant has at all times referenced in this complaint been actually aware that the scooter
`26.
`ridden by Plaintiff, as designed and manufactured, is dangerous, defective and certain to cause serious
`injury to riders when used cautiously and prudently, in an intended and reasonably foreseeable way.
`Bird Rides knew it should regularly test its scooters to determine whether the scooters had
`27.
`manifested, developed or sustained exacerbations of defects resulting from use over time. Bird Rides
`knew that if it did not follow a program to test its scooters for defects and ensure that defective
`scooters were removed from service and repaired, riders would be seriously injured.
`Defendant was specifically aware that their scooters suffered from a defect that caused them to
`28.
`stop abruptly without input or action from the rider (the “stopping defect”), in addition to numerous
`other defects. Defendant was actually and consciously aware that the stopping defect was certain to
`cause serious injury to riders when their scooters were used cautiously and prudently, in the intended
`and reasonably foreseeable way. The stopping defect was a problem that was well known to
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`4
`
`

`

`
`Defendant. Defendant knew that if their scooters remained available for rent, it was a certainty that
`riders would be seriously injured as a result of the stopping defect.
`Nonetheless, Defendant allowed their scooters to remain available for rental, with design and
`29.
`manufacturing defects they knew were certain to cause serious injury to riders. And they failed to
`implement an adequate testing and maintenance program for their scooters, with knowledge that this
`failure to implement an adequate testing and maintenance program was certain to cause serious
`injuries to riders.
`Defendant’s acts and omissions as described herein, including, without limitation, the
`30.
`deployment of dangerous and unmaintained scooters, were an attempt to decrease their cost of doing
`business and increase their profitability.
`By renting scooters they knew were certain to cause serious injury when used cautiously and
`31.
`prudently, in an intended and reasonably foreseeable way, Defendant exhibited criminal indifference
`to the safety of others, including Plaintiff, and consciously and deliberately disregarded the rights and
`safety of Plaintiff and others. Defendant’s conduct was in such conscious and deliberate disregard of
`the interests of others that their conduct was willful and wanton.
`As a direct and proximate result of the stopping defect, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries.
`32.
`33.
`Despite knowing that their scooters were dangerous and defective, Defendant knowingly
`misrepresented that the scooters were safe and reliable, and Defendant consciously and deliberately
`concealed the dangerousness and defectiveness of the scooters.
`Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions concerning the safety of their scooters were
`34.
`willful and wanton, and were made with knowledge the misrepresentations would induce consumers
`to ride the scooters and become seriously injured as a result of the scooters’ defects.
`As a direct result of Defendant’s willful, wanton, and deliberate disregard for the safety and
`35.
`rights of consumers, Plaintiff has suffered severe physical injury.
`In addition to defects that are inherent and manifest in the scooters the moment they are off the
`36.
`production line, there are additional defects that manifest over time as a result of the lack of care with
`which the scooters are treated.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`5
`
`

`

`
`Individuals tend to treat property that they own carefully. As such, even if the scooters in
`37.
`question would be suitable for use by individual owner-consumers (to be clear, Plaintiff disputes this
`proposition and contends the scooters are inherently dangerous and defective), the Bird Rides scooters
`are unsuitable for use in a rental fleet. They are unsuitable for use in a rental fleet because, inter alia,
`consumers, who have no financial stake in the preservation of the scooters, treat the scooters roughly
`by dropping and abusing them, and because the independent contractors who pick the scooters up at
`night to charge them carelessly throw the scooters into trucks and vans with no regard for keeping the
`scooters in safe, working condition.
`Defendant is fully aware that their scooters, such as the one Plaintiff is injured on, are not
`38.
`designed or suited for the rental market. Nonetheless, Defendant keeps the rental scooters in service
`long after they should be retired for safety reasons, all in the interest of selling more rides and
`increasing their profits.
`A more fundamental and incurable problem with the composition of the Bird Rides scooter
`39.
`fleet is that, in a fight for “first to market” status, Defendant hastily manufactured and deployed
`consumer-grade scooters that were unable to withstand the rigors of the rental market, all to the
`financial benefit of Defendant and great detriment to the well-being and safety of consumers.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Strict Liability: Design Defect
`(against all Defendants)
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`40.
`full in this cause of action.
`Defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to design and market a product that is not
`41.
`dangerous to users.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant manufactured, designed, tested, inspected,
`42.
`assembled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and rented the Bird Rides scooters, placing the products
`into the stream of commerce.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`6
`
`

`

`
`At all times relevant to this action, the Bird Rides scooters were designed, tested, inspected,
`43.
`assembled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and rented by Defendant in a condition that was
`defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers, including Plaintiff.
`Bird Rides scooters are defective in their design in that they are not reasonably fit, suitable, or
`44.
`safe for their intended purpose, and/or their foreseeable risks exceed the benefits associated with their
`design.
`Bird Rides scooters were intended to reach, and subsequently did reach, users and/or
`45.
`consumers, including Plaintiff, without substantial change in the defective and unreasonably
`dangerous condition in which they were distributed and rented.
`Bird Rides scooters were and are unreasonably dangerous in that, as designed, they failed to
`46.
`perform safely when used by ordinary consumers, including Plaintiff, when used as intended and in a
`reasonably foreseeable manner.
`Bird Rides scooters were and are unreasonably dangerous and defective in design for their
`47.
`intended use in that, when they left the hands of the supplier, they posed a risk of serious injury which
`could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a feasible and reasonable alternative design.
`48. While using Defendant’s product as intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner, Plaintiff
`suffered and continues to suffer serious injury, emotional distress, and special damages for, inter alia,
`medical treatment and lost wages, and was otherwise harmed.
`Bird Rides scooters’ defective design and failure to perform safely was a substantial factor in
`49.
`causing Plaintiff’s injuries and harm.
`By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages as a result of their
`50.
`design, assembly, marketing, promotion, distribution, and/or renting of a dangerous and/or defective
`product.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Strict Liability: Manufacturing Defect
`(against all Defendants)
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`51.
`full in this cause of action.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`7
`
`

`

`
`At all times relevant to this this action, Defendant manufactured, distributed, marketed and
`52.
`rented Bird Rides scooters, placing the product into the stream of commerce.
`Upon information and belief, the Bird Rides scooters contained a manufacturing defect when
`53.
`they left Defendant’s possession and were distributed to consumers, including Plaintiff.
`54. While using Defendant’s product as intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner, Plaintiff
`suffered and continues to suffer serious injury, emotional distress, and special damages for, inter alia,
`medical expenses, and was otherwise harmed.
`A manufacturing defect was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and harm.
`55.
`56.
`By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages as a result of their
`manufacturing, marketing, promotion, distribution, and/or renting of a product with a manufacturing
`defect.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Strict Liability: Failure to Adequately Warn
`(against all Defendants)
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`57.
`full in this cause of action.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant distributed and rented Bird Rides scooters,
`58.
`placing the products into the stream of commerce.
`The Bird Rides scooters had potential risks that were known or knowable in light of scientific
`59.
`and medical knowledge that was generally accepted in the scientific and medical community at the
`time Defendant distributed and rented the scooters.
`Defendant was actually aware of those risks at the time they distributed and rented the
`60.
`scooters.
`The potential risks of the Bird Rides scooters presented a substantial danger when used in a
`61.
`reasonably foreseeable way.
`Ordinary consumers, including Plaintiff, would not have recognized the potential risks and/or
`62.
`dangers of riding Bird Rides scooters in a reasonably foreseeable way.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`8
`
`

`

`
`Defendant failed to adequately warn or instruct consumers, including Plaintiff, of the potential
`63.
`risks and/or dangers of using the Bird Rides scooters.
`As a result of Defendant’s failure to adequately warn or instruct consumers, including
`64.
`Plaintiff, of the potential risks and/or dangers of using the Bird Rides scooters, Plaintiff suffered and
`continues to suffer serious injury, emotional distress, and special damages for, inter alia, medical
`treatment and lost wages, and was otherwise harmed.
`Defendant’s failure to adequately warn or instruct regarding the potential risks and/or dangers
`65.
`of using the Bird Rides scooters was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and harm.
`By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages as a result failing to
`66.
`adequately warn or instruct regarding the potential risks and/or dangers of using the Bird Rides
`scooters.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Negligence
`(against all Defendants)
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`67.
`full in this cause of action.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant designed, tested, inspected, assembled,
`68.
`marketed, promoted, distributed, manufactured and/or rented Bird Rides scooters, placing the
`products into the stream of commerce.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to design,
`69.
`manufacture, and/or market a product that is not dangerous to users.
`At the time of manufacture and/or distribution of the Bird Rides scooter, Defendant knew or
`70.
`reasonably should have known that the Bird Rides scooters are designed and/or manufactured in such
`a manner as to present an unreasonable risk to users of the product.
`Defendant breached their duty of reasonable care and were negligent in:
`71.
`a. Unreasonably and carelessly failing to properly warn of the dangers and risks
`associated with the Bird Rides scooters;
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`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
`
`b. Unreasonably and carelessly designing a product that contained a defect that exposed
`consumers, including Plaintiff, to risks and dangers; and/or
`c. Unreasonably and carelessly designing a product that was unreasonably dangerous for
`its intended use to consumers, including Plaintiff.
`d. Unreasonably and carelessly failing to implement an adequate testing and maintenance
`program.
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care, Plaintiff
`72.
`suffered and continues to suffer serious injury, emotional distress, and special damages for, inter alia,
`medical treatment and lost wages, and was otherwise harmed.
`Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
`73.
`injuries and harm.
`By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages resulting from their
`74.
`breach of their duty of reasonable care with respect to the design, manufacture, distribution, testing,
`maintenance, and repair of Bird Rides scooters, as well as their failure to adequately warn consumers,
`including Plaintiff, of the risk and dangers associated therewith.
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Gross Negligence
`(against all Defendants)
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`75.
`full in this cause of action.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant designed, tested, inspected, assembled,
`76.
`marketed, promoted, distributed, manufactured and/or rented their Bird Rides scooters, placing the
`products into the stream of commerce.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to design,
`77.
`manufacture, and/or market a product that is not dangerous to users.
`At the time of manufacture and/or distribution of the Bird Rides scooters, Defendant knew or
`78.
`reasonably should have known that the Bird Rides scooters were designed and/or manufactured in
`such a manner as to present an unreasonable risk to users of the product.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`10
`
`

`

`
`79.
`
`Defendant breached their duty of reasonable care and were negligent in:
`a. Unreasonably and carelessly failing to properly warn of the dangers and risks
`associated with the Bird Rides scooters;
`b. Unreasonably and carelessly designing a product that contained a defect that exposed
`consumers, including Plaintiff, to risks and dangers; and/or
`c. Unreasonably and carelessly designing a product that was unreasonably dangerous for
`its intended use to consumers, including Plaintiff.
`d. Unreasonably and carelessly failing to implement an adequate testing and maintenance
`program.
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care, Plaintiff
`80.
`suffered serious injury and was otherwise harmed.
`Defendant’s breach of its duty of reasonable care was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s
`81.
`injuries and harm.
`In addition, Defendant failed to exercise even scant care, engaged in an extreme departure
`82.
`from the ordinary standard of conduct, exhibited criminal indifference, and consciously and
`deliberately disregarded the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others. Defendant’s conduct was in such
`conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that their conduct was willful and wanton.
`By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages as a result of their
`83.
`gross negligence regarding the design, manufacture, and distribution of the Bird Rides scooters, as
`well as their failure to adequately warn consumers, including Plaintiff, of the risk and dangers
`associated therewith, and its failure to adequately test and maintain the scooters.
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Breach of Express Warranty
`(against all Defendants)
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`84.
`full in this cause of action.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`11
`
`

`

`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant, through their advertising and marketing
`85.
`materials expressly warranted to consumers, including Plaintiff, that Bird Rides scooters were of
`marketable quality and safe and fit for their intended use.
`The Bird Rides scooter Plaintiff rented was not of marketable quality and did not perform
`86.
`safely for its intended use by Plaintiff, as promised by Defendant through their advertising and
`marketing materials.
`Defendant has been put on effective notice that their scooters are not of marketable quality and
`87.
`do not perform safely for their intended use, but have failed to cure these deficiencies.
`Defendant’s failure to cure the deficiencies of its Bird Rides scooters constitutes a breach of
`88.
`express warranty.
`89. While using Defendant’s product as intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner, Plaintiff
`was seriously injured and otherwise harmed.
`Bird Rides scooters failure to be of marketable quality and safe as represented was a
`90.
`substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and harm.
`By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages as a result of
`91.
`Defendant’s breach of express warranty.
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Breach of Implied Warranty
`(against all Defendants)
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`92.
`full in this cause of action.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was in the business of distributing and renting
`93.
`Bird Rides scooters to consumers, including Plaintiff.
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant implicitly warranted to consumers, including
`94.
`Plaintiff, that their Bird Rides scooters were of marketable quality and safe and fit for their intended
`use.
`The Bird Rides scooters were not of marketable quality, did not perform safely for its intended
`95.
`use by Plaintiff, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which such products are used.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`12
`
`

`

`
`The failure of the Bird Rides scooter to perform safely for its intended use constitutes a breach
`96.
`of implied warranty.
`97. While using Defendant’s product as intended and in a reasonably foreseeable manner, Plaintiff
`was seriously injured and otherwise harmed.
`Bird Rides scooters’ failure to be of marketable quality and safe as implicitly represented was
`98.
`a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and harm.
`By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages as a result of
`99.
`Defendant’s breach of implied warranty.
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Unfair Competition – Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.
`(against all Defendants)
`100. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`full in this cause of action.
`101. Defendant’s scooters are inherently dangerous and defective. When used cautiously and
`prudently, in a reasonably foreseeable manner, for their intended purpose, the scooters are likely to,
`do, and will continue to cause injury to riders and other individuals. Additionally, Defendant does not
`have an adequate program for testing and repairing defective scooters.
`In their marketing, promotion, distribution and rental of their scooters, (i) Defendant
`102.
`misrepresents the scooters as being safe and reliable, and (ii) Defendant fraudulently omit to warn
`consumers that the scooters are inherently dangerous and defective.
`103. Defendant make these misrepresentations and omissions in order to induce consumers to
`purchase and rent their dangerous and defective scooters.
`104. Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions have been effective in increasing rentals of
`their scooters. By way of illustration, Bird Rides has induced over two (2) million unique consumers
`to purchase in excess of 20 (twenty) million scooter rides.
`105. Many consumers have been injured in scooter crashes after relying on Defendant’s
`misrepresentations and omissions concerning the safety of their scooters.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`13
`
`

`

`
`106. On information and belief, the consumers injured in crashes caused by the dangerousness and
`defectiveness of the scooters number in the thousands.
` If Defendant is not enjoined from making the misrepresentations and omissions alleged
`107.
`herein, the misrepresentations and omissions will continue, and will cause thousands more consumers
`to suffer injuries in scooter crashes.
`108. Plaintiff seeks the following injunctive relief:
`a. An order that prohibits Defendant from representing their scooters as safe and reliable,
`or using words of similar import to describe their scooters.
`b. An order that, before introducing a new model of scooter into service, Defendant
`engage an independent, third party firm to test the safety of the design.
`c. An order that Bird Rides withdraw from service all dangerous and defective models of
`its scooters, which models are subject to proof at trial.
`d. An order that Bird Rides develop a program for testing and maintenance of its
`deployed scooters that is reasonably calculated to protect the safety of the public without
`placing an excessive financial burden on Bird Rides.
` Defendant, in engaging in the conduct described in this complaint, acted with fraud, malice
`109.
`and oppression, and consciously disregarded the rights and safety of Plaintiff and of the public.
`NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`False Advertising – Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.
`(against all Defendants)
`110. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of this Complaint as if set forth in
`full in this cause of action.
`111. Defendant’s scooters are inherently dangerous and defective. When used cautiously and
`prudently, in a reasonably foreseeable manner, for their intended purpose, the scooters are likely to,
`do, and will continue to cause injury to riders and other individuals. Additionally, Defendant does not
`have an adequate maintenance program for testing and repairing defective scooters.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`14
`
`

`

`
`In their marketing, promotion, distribution and rental of their scooters, Defendant has made
`112.
`and continues to make false statements that their scooters are safe and reliable, and Defendant
`fraudulently omitted to warn consumers that the scooters are inherently dangerous and defective.
`113. These misrepresentations and omissions are publicly disseminated and constitute advertising.
`114. Defendant knew, knows, and should have known that these statements and omissions were
`false and fraudulent.
`115. Plaintiff seeks the following injunctive relief:
`a. An order that prohibits Defendant from representing their scooters as safe and reliable,
`or using words of similar import to describe its scooters.
`b. And order that, before introducing a new model of scooter into service, Defendant
`engage an independent, third party firm to test the safety of the design.
`c. An order that Bird Rides withdraw from service all dangerous and defective models of
`its scooters, which models are subject to proof at trial.
`d. An order that Bird Rides develop a program for testing and maintenance of its
`deployed scooters that is reasonably calculated to protect the safety of the public without
`placing an excessive financial burden on Bird Rides.
`116. Defendant, in engaging in the conduct in question, acted with fraud, malice and oppression,
`and consciously disregarded the rights and safety of Plaintiff and of the public.
`TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Consumer Legal Remedies Act – Civil Code Section 1770, et seq.
`(against all Defendants)
`117. Defendant is in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Section
`1770, et seq., which provides in part as follows:
`
`“(a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices
`undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or
`lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful… (5) Representing that goods or
`services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status