`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`Assigned to Judge:
`
`__________________
`
`Angela Pickard, Individually and as
`Executor of the Estate of Archie Pickard,
`deceased, Dustin Pickard, Wendy Elmore,
`Joni Thompson and Wayne Pickard,
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`
`v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com, LLC;
`Amazon.com Services LLC; Amazon.com
`Services LLC formerly known as
`Amazon.com Services, Inc.; Amazon.com
`Services, Inc.; Amazon.com Services, Inc.
`formerly known as Amazon Fulfillment
`Services, Inc.; Amazon Fulfillment
`Services, Inc.; and Amazon.com Sales,
`Inc.,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`SHREVEPORT DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINITFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Defendants
`
`TRIAL BY JURY REQUESTED
`
`
`
`COME NOW Plaintiffs Angela Pickard, Individually and as Executor of the Estate
`
`of Archie Pickard, deceased, Dustin Pickard, Wendy Elmore, Joni Thompson and Wayne
`
`Pickard (“Plaintiffs”), and file this Original Complaint complaining of Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`Amazon.com, LLC, Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Services LLC formerly
`
`known as Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services,
`
`Inc. formerly known as Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., Amazon Fulfillment Services,
`
`Inc., and Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and for cause of action would respectfully show this
`
`Honorable Court the following:
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 2
`
`I.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Angela Pickard, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Archie
`
`Pickard, deceased, is a citizen and resident of Louisiana.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Dustin Pickard is a citizen and resident of Louisiana.
`
`Plaintiff Wendy Elmore is a citizen and resident of Louisiana.
`
`Plaintiff Joni Thompson is a citizen and resident of Louisiana.
`
`Plaintiff Wayne Pickard is a citizen and resident of Colorado.
`
`Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a corporation that is incorporated in the state
`
`of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Washington. Defendant is doing
`
`business in the State of Louisiana and caused an injury through its act or omission in the
`
`State of Louisiana. Defendant does not have a registered agent for service of process in the
`
`state of Louisiana. Service of Process on Defendant may be made according to the laws of
`
`the state of Louisiana, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:3201 and LSA-R.S. 13:3204 by either
`
`serving its registered agent for service in Washington: Corporation Service Company, 300
`
`Deschutes Way SW Ste 208 M; C-CSC1, Tumwater, Washington 98501, or by service on
`
`any employee of suitable age and discretion at 410 Terry Avenue, Seattle, WA 98109, the
`
`place where the business of the corporation is regularly conducted.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Amazon.com, LLC is a limited liability company that is organized
`
`under the laws of the state of Delaware and has its principal place of business in
`
`Washington. Defendant is doing business in the State of Louisiana and caused an injury
`
`through its act or omission in the State of Louisiana. Defendant does not have a registered
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3
`
`agent for service of process in the state of Louisiana. Service of Process on Defendant may
`
`be made according to the laws of the state of Louisiana, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:3201 and
`
`LSA-R.S. 13:3204 by serving its registered agent for service in Washington: Corporation
`
`Service Company, 300 Deschutes Way SW Ste 208 M; C-CSC1, Tumwater, Washington
`
`98501, or by service on any employee of suitable age and discretion at 410 Terry Avenue,
`
`Seattle, WA 98109, the place where the business of the corporation is regularly conducted.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in the state of Washington. Such Defendant
`
`is registered to do business in the State of Louisiana and can be served through its
`
`designated agent for service in the State of Louisiana: Corporation Service Company, 501
`
`Louisiana Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC formerly known as Amazon.com
`
`Services, Inc. is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business
`
`in the state of Washington. Such Defendant is registered to do business in the State of
`
`Louisiana and can be served through its designated agent for service in the State of
`
`Louisiana: Corporation Service Company, 501 Louisiana Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
`
`70802.
`
`10. Defendant Amazon.com Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in the state of Washington. Such Defendant is registered to do
`
`business in the State of Louisiana and can be served through its designated agent for service
`
`in the State of Louisiana: Corporation Service Company, 501 Louisiana Avenue, Baton
`
`Rouge, Louisiana 70802.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4
`
`11. Defendant Amazon.com Services, Inc. formerly known as Amazon
`
`Fulfillment Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`the state of Washington. Such Defendant is registered to do business in the State of
`
`Louisiana and can be served through its designated agent for service in the State of
`
`Louisiana: Corporation Service Company, 501 Louisiana Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
`
`70802.
`
`12. Defendant Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business in the state of Washington. Such Defendant is registered to
`
`do business in the State of Louisiana and can be served through its designated agent for
`
`service in the State of Louisiana: Corporation Service Company, 501 Louisiana Avenue,
`
`Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802.
`
`13. Defendant Amazon.com Sales, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in the state of Washington. Such Defendant is registered to do
`
`business in the State of Louisiana and can be served through its designated agent for service
`
`in the State of Louisiana: Corporation Service Company, 501 Louisiana Avenue, Baton
`
`Rouge, Louisiana 70802.
`
`14. Hereinafter, Defendants Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., Amazon.com, LLC,
`
`Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com Services LLC formerly known as Amazon.com
`
`Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services, Inc. formerly known as
`
`Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., and Amazon.com
`
`Sales, Inc. will be referred to collectively as “Amazon” and/or “Defendants.”
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is a
`
`complete diversity of parties and the amount in controversy is over $75,000.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana and Colorado.
`
`17.
`
`The Amazon entities are citizens of Delaware with their principal place of
`
`business in Washington.
`
`18.
`
`This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Amazon. Amazon had a
`
`pecuniary interest in and facilitated the transaction underlying this litigation, involving a
`
`purchase by a Louisiana resident of a product made available for sale in Louisiana and
`
`shipped to Louisiana by use of Amazon’s website and, upon information and belief,
`
`Amazon collected Louisiana sales tax on behalf of the seller for the transaction.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs believe that jurisdiction and venue is proper in the Shreveport
`
`Division of the Western District of Louisiana, because a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred at 3535 Colquitt Rd, Shreveport,
`
`Louisiana 71118-4207, where Plaintiffs’ decedent, Archie Pickard, was killed as a result
`
`of using the unreasonably dangerous product that was shipped to him at that address after
`
`he purchased it through Amazon’s website.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Archie Pickard purchased a battery charger from Amazon.
`
`20. Amazon operates a website, in which it both (1) acts as a retailer in selling
`
`products directly to consumers and (2) provides a forum for third-party sellers to seller
`
`products, subject to Amazon’s policies and product safety oversight and review.
`
`21. Archie Pickard bought a “18650 Rechargeable Li-ion Battery Charger 4 Slot
`
`Universal Smart Li-ion Battery Charger” (hereinafter, “battery charger”) using Amazon’s
`
`website. This purchase was made in Order #114-3726846-1362641 on December 15, 2019.
`
`He purchased this item from an Amazon third-party seller, Jisell, using Amazon’s website.
`
`See Fig. 1, screenshot from Amazon’s website showing battery charger.
`
`Fig 1. – Subject battery charger product listing on Amazon’s website
`
`
`
`22.
`
`In making this purchase, Archie Pickard relied on Amazon’s promises to
`
`oversee safety on its website, including Amazon’s promises to remove items that do not
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 7
`
`comply with its safety policies, directly notify consumers if there is a safety issue with a
`
`product, monitor safety documentation for products, continuously improve its tools to
`
`prevent unsafe products from being listed and vetting new sellers.
`
`B.
`
`Amazon undertakes to protect its customers from products sold by
`third-party sellers on Amazon’s website.
`
`23. Amazon promises to protect its customers, like Archie Pickard, from
`
`dangerous items sold by third-party sellers on Amazon’s website. Specifically, Amazon
`
`promises to (1) remove items that do not comply with its safety policies, (2) directly notify
`
`consumers if there is a safety issue with a product, (3) monitor safety documentation for
`
`products, (4) continuously improve its tools to prevent unsafe products from being listed,
`
`and (5) vet new sellers.
`
`24. Amazon promises to remove items sold by third-party sellers on its website
`
`that are unsafe. For example, Amazon’s “Product and Safety Compliance” policy states
`
`that “All products offered in our stores must comply with applicable laws and regulations,
`
`and our own policies.” Amazon’s “Restricted Products” policies states that “[i]f you [the
`
`seller] supply a product in violation of the law or any of Amazon’s policies, including those
`
`listed on the Restricted Products pages, we will take corrective actions, as appropriate,
`
`including but not limited to immediately suspending or terminating selling privileges,
`
`destroying inventory in our fulfillment centers without reimbursement, returning
`
`inventory, terminating the business relationship, and permanent withholding of payments.
`
`The sale of illegal or unsafe products can also lead to legal action, including civil and
`
`criminal penalties. We are constantly innovating on behalf of our customers and working
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8
`
`with regulators, third party experts, vendors, and sellers to improve the ways we detect and
`
`prevent illegal and unsafe products from reaching our marketplace. Amazon encourages
`
`you to report listings that violate Amazon's policies or applicable law by contacting us. We
`
`will investigate each report thoroughly and take appropriate action.”
`
`25. Amazon imposes specific safety restrictions on products sold by third-party
`
`sellers and conducts specific safety reviews for certain products “which have a higher risk
`
`of safety concerns.” Amazon’s “Restricted Products” policy states that “[s]hopping with
`
`confidence is one of the highest priorities of Amazon. In order to ensure the products
`
`available on Amazon are safe, we have identified certain products (see listing below) which
`
`have a higher risk of safety concerns. To list products in these categories, you must apply
`
`and submit documents showing that the products are safe for customers.”
`
`26. Amazon promises its customers that it will “directly notify” them if there is
`
`a “safety issue” with a product sold by a third-party seller. Amazon’s “Product Safety and
`
`Compliance” document states that “because of our direct relationships with customers, we
`
`are able to trace and directly notify customers who purchased a particular product online
`
`and alert them to a potential safety issue . . . .”
`
`27. Amazon also promises its customers that it monitors safety documentation
`
`of products sold by third-party sellers on its website. Amazon’s “Product Safety and
`
`Compliance” document states that “[w]e have a dedicated global team of compliance
`
`specialists that review submitted safety documentation, and we have additional
`
`qualification requirements that sellers must meet to offer products.” That same document,
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9
`
`again, promises that “[o]nce a product is available in our store, we continuously scan our
`
`product listings and updates to find products that might present a concern.”
`
`28. Amazon promises to vet new third-party sellers who intend to sell on
`
`Amazon’s website. Specifically, Amazon’s “Product Safety and Compliance” document
`
`holds out to the public that Amazon engages in “new seller account vetting.”
`
`29.
`
`Finally, Amazon represents that it “continuously scans our product listings
`
`and updates to find products that might be of concern. Amazon’s “Product Safety and
`
`Compliance” document promises that “Every few minutes, our tools review the hundreds
`
`of millions of products, scan the more than five billion attempted daily changes to product
`
`detail pages, and analyze the tens of millions of customer reviews that are submitted weekly
`
`for signs of a concern and investigate accordingly.”
`
`30. Amazon did not perform any of these tasks with regard to the battery charger.
`
`31.
`
`The battery charger did not comply with Amazon’s product safety policies.
`
`It was a fire hazard as detailed in the Customer reviews that Amazon purportedly reviews
`
`every few minutes. Despite this product violating Amazon’s safety policy, and Amazon’s
`
`undertaking to remove such products from third-party sellers from its website to protect its
`
`customers, Amazon did not remove the battery charger.
`
`32.
`
`There were repeated indications, detailed in paragraphs 39-49, that the
`
`battery charger was dangerous. But Amazon never notified Archie Pickard that there was
`
`a safety issue with the battery charger.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 10
`
`33.
`
`There were repeated indications, detailed in paragraphs 39-49, that the
`
`battery charger was dangerous. But Amazon did not monitor this safety documentation for
`
`the battery charger.
`
`34. Amazon did not adequately vet the third-party seller, Jisell, who repeatedly
`
`sold defective and dangerous products, as explained in paragraphs 39-49. Amazon states
`
`that its vetting process includes a number of verifications and uses proprietary machine
`
`learning technology that stops bad actors before they can register a product in its store.
`
`Amazon further claims that it has a dedicated global team of compliance specialists that
`
`review submitted safety documentation for a product. In this instance, there is no indication
`
`that Amazon took any action to vet Jisell. Amazon failed in its vetting process and allowed
`
`a third-party seller to continue to sell the battery charger, which was an unsafe product
`
`because it was a fire hazard.
`
`C.
`
`Jisell, the third-party seller, is an “alter ego” of Amazon under
`Louisiana law.
`
`35. Amazon is a “manufacturer” of the battery charger under Louisiana law, La.
`
`Stat. § 9:2800.53(1)(d).
`
`36.
`
`Jisell, the third-party seller, manufactured the battery charger. Jisell is an
`
`alien manufacturer because it is a Chinese company, based in Shang Hai. According to the
`
`“Detailed Seller Information” on Amazon’s website, Jisell is the fictious or “friendly”
`
`name for Shang Hai Ji Xiao Dian Zi Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si, a Chinese company whose
`
`business address is Feng Xian Qu Hai Wan Zhen Wu Si Gong Lu, 4399 Hao 37 Dong 107,
`
`Shang Hai 201499.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 11
`
`37. Amazon is in the business of importing and/or distributing Jisell’s products,
`
`including the battery charger, in the United States for resale. Amazon routinely imports
`
`Jisell’s products into the United States and lists them on Amazon’s website for resale.
`
`Amazon specifically imported the battery charger at issue into the United States for
`
`purposes of distribution to buyers, like Archie Pickard.
`
`38. Amazon is the alter ego of Jisell as that term is used in La. Stat.
`
`§ 9:2800.53(1)(d). Amazon assumes and administers product warranty obligations for
`
`Jisell, as detailed in paragraphs 23-34. Additionally, Amazon assumes or administers
`
`product warranty obligations of Jisell by accepting returns of Jisell’s products if the
`
`products are defective. Furthermore, Amazon prepares the product for distribution by
`
`shipping it from Amazon’s warehouses.
`
`D.
`
`Amazon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the battery
`charger was unreasonably dangerous to its customers.
`
`39. Amazon knew, or reasonably should have known, that the battery charger
`
`was unreasonably dangerous to its customers.
`
`40. Amazon’s website allows purchasers of products to leave reviews of
`
`products purchased on Amazon’s website, including a description of problems that a
`
`customer encountered with the product.
`
`41.
`
` Jisell, the third-party seller of the battery charger, sells a substantively
`
`similar six-slot battery charger (“substantively similar battery charger”) on Amazon’s
`
`website. This substantively similar battery charger is identical in all respects to the battery
`
`charger that Archie Pickard purchased, with one exception. The substantively similar
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 12
`
`battery charger can charge six batteries at a time, while the battery charger at issue can only
`
`charge four batteries at a time. This slight difference makes no difference as to the safety
`
`issues with the battery charger and the substantively similar battery charger.
`
`42.
`
`This substantively similar battery charger had several reviews indicating that
`
`the battery charger had safety issues. Over the course of several months, several reviews
`
`of a substantively similar battery charger state that the item is “dangerous.”
`
`43. An October 13, 2019 review noted that the substantively similar battery
`
`charger is “dangerous” and a “fire hazard.” This review stated that the substantively similar
`
`battery charger “[s]parked like crazy when first plugged in.”
`
`44. An October 19, 2019 review also noted that the substantively similar battery
`
`charger is “defective” and that there were “sparks from cord when plugging [it] into [a]
`
`household outlet.”
`
`45. An October 11, 2019 review of the substantively similar battery charger
`
`specifically notes that “someone less knowledgeable might have bur[n]t their house down.”
`
`46.
`
`The four-slot battery charger purchased by Archie Pickard has continued to
`
`have safety issues as reported to Amazon by a verified purchaser through his October 18,
`
`2020 review. In his review, the purchaser stated the battery charger was junk and “It caught
`
`on fire DO NOT BUY!!” See Fig. 2 below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 13
`
`Fig. 2 – Customer Review of Subject Battery Charger
`
`
`
`47.
`
`In addition to Amazon’s general promises to review safety information for
`
`products, detailed in paragraphs 23-34, Amazon specifically monitored reviews of the
`
`substantively similar battery charger. For example, Amazon removed an April 6, 2018
`
`review of the substantively similar battery charger. Additionally, Amazon removed similar
`
`reviews of the substantively similar battery charger posted on May 1, 2019, in July 2018,
`
`and in August 2018. These actions demonstrate that Amazon was actively monitoring the
`
`reviews on the substantively similar battery charger.
`
`48.
`
`If Amazon’s undertakings, described in paragraphs 23-34, were performed
`
`with due care, both the substantively similar battery charger and the battery charger
`
`purchased by Archie Pickard would have been removed from Amazon’s website.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 14
`
`49. At a minimum, Amazon’s undertakings, described in paragraphs 23-34,
`
`should have determined that these reviews from the substantively similar battery charger
`
`indicated that the battery charger that Archie Pickard purchased was defective.
`
`E.
`
`The battery charger caused a fire at Archie Pickard’s home and caused
`him to sustain burn injuries that caused his death.
`
`50.
`
`The battery charger caused a fire at Archie Pickard’s house at 3535 Colquitt
`
`Road Shreveport, Louisiana 71119 on or about December 21, 2019. Archie Pickard owns
`
`the real property, including the house, at 3535 Colquitt Road Shreveport, Louisiana 71119.
`
`51. On or about December 21, 2019, in the early morning, Archie Pickard was
`
`asleep in the living room recliner at his house at 3535 Colquitt Road Shreveport, Louisiana
`
`71119.
`
`52. Archie Pickard was suddenly awakened by a noise. He saw sparks coming
`
`from the battery charger on the floor near the recliner, where he was charging lithium ion
`
`batteries.
`
`53. Archie Pickard then went to the home of his neighbor, Michael Starnes house
`
`(3537 Colquitt), woke him, and alerted him to the fire. Mr. Starnes called 9-1-1, and then
`
`he took his fire extinguisher to Archie Pickard’s house. Mr. Starnes sprayed the
`
`extinguisher on the fire in the area of the recliner. After some initial success, the smoke
`
`became too severe, so both exited. Eventually, the fire department extinguished the fire.
`
`54. After the fire, an investigation confirmed that the movement and intensity
`
`patterns indicated that the fire traveled northward from the living room, into the front entry.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15
`
`Fire damage was discovered throughout the house and was observed to the windows and
`
`eaves of the roof in all areas.
`
`55.
`
`The investigation discovered damage to the battery charger including its
`
`power cord, which appeared to be the origin of the fire. Archie Pickard’s eyewitness
`
`statement and the statement of the neighbor, Michael Starnes, confirmed that the fire
`
`originated from the battery charger. See Fig. 3, photograph of the battery charger post fire.
`
`Fig. 3. – Photo of Subject Battery Charger Post Fire
`
`
`
`56.
`
`In short, the eyewitness accounts and the investigation confirmed that an
`
`electrical malfunction in the battery charger was the ignition source of the fire.
`
`57. Archie Pickard sustained severe burns as a result of the fire. After the fire
`
`department arrived in response to Starnes’ 9-1-1 call, they determined that Archie Pickard
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 16
`
`required medical attention. Archie Pickard was transferred to a nearby hospital, where he
`
`ultimately died as a result of the burn injuries and their complications.
`
`IV.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`Products Liability.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-57 as if fully set forth here.
`
`The battery charger is unreasonably dangerous in design or construction. It
`
`A.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`has been known to cause fires. No reasonably designed battery charger would do so. There
`
`was an electrical malfunction in the battery charger and/or its cord which caused a
`
`sufficient level of heat to build up to ignite a fire in Mr. Pickard’s home.
`
`60.
`
`These defects existed in the battery charger at the time the product left the
`
`manufacturer. The defects in the battery charger existed from the time it was made and
`
`there were no subsequent modifications to the battery charger after it left the manufacturer.
`
`61. Amazon is a manufacturer under the Louisiana products liability statute.
`
`62.
`
`The Louisiana products liability statute provides that a “seller of a product of
`
`an alien manufacturer” is a manufacturer for purposes of products liability “if the seller is
`
`in the business of importing or distributing the product for resale and the seller is the alter
`
`ego of the alien manufacturer.” La. Stat. § 9:2800.53(1)(d).
`
`63.
`
`For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 20-38, Amazon is in the business of
`
`importing or distributing the battery charger for resale.
`
`64.
`
`The Louisiana products liability statute considers several factors in
`
`determining whether the seller is an alter ego of the manufacturer for purposes of that
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 17
`
`statute: “whether the seller is affiliated with the alien manufacturer by way of common
`
`ownership or control; whether the seller assumes or administers product warranty
`
`obligations of the alien manufacturer; whether the seller prepares or modifies the product
`
`for distribution; or any other relevant evidence.”
`
`65.
`
`For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 35-38, Amazon is an alter ego of
`
`Jisell, the entity that designed, constructed and manufactured the battery charger.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs were seriously damaged by Amazon’s conduct described in
`
`paragraphs 20-49. These damages are further detailed in paragraphs 50-57.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiffs also suffered mental anguish due to the fire and other damages
`
`caused by Amazon’s conduct detailed in paragraphs 20-49.
`
`B.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Negligent Undertaking.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-57 as if fully set forth here.
`
`In the event that it is determined that Amazon is not a manufacturer,
`
`Plaintiffs, in the alternative, assert this claim for negligent undertaking under Louisiana
`
`law.
`
`70. Amazon voluntarily undertook to protect buyers from unsafe products sold
`
`by third-party sellers on Amazon’s website, as discussed in paragraphs 23-34.
`
`71.
`
`This voluntary undertaking imposed a duty under Louisiana law on Amazon
`
`to perform the undertakings discussed in paragraphs 23-34 with due care. Additionally,
`
`Amazon has a duty to Plaintiffs/Decedent under La. Civ. Code art. 2315(A).
`
`72. Amazon did not perform those duties with due care, as discussed in
`
`paragraphs 20-49.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 18
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiffs were seriously damaged by Amazon’s conduct described in
`
`paragraphs 20-49. These damages are further detailed in paragraphs 50-57.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiffs also suffered mental anguish due to the fire and other damages
`
`caused by Amazon’s conduct detailed in paragraphs 20-49.
`
`C.
`
`75.
`
`Non-manufacturing seller liability
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-57 as if fully set forth here.
`
`76. Amazon sold the battery charger at issue, as detailed in paragraph 21. In the
`
`event that it is determined that Amazon is not a manufacturer, Plaintiffs, in the alternative,
`
`assert this claim for non-manufacturing seller liability under Louisiana law.
`
`77. Amazon had actual or constructive knowledge that the battery charger was
`
`defective. Specifically, Amazon had actual knowledge that the substantively similar battery
`
`charger was defective, as detailed in paragraphs 39-49. From that knowledge, it can be
`
`inferred that Amazon had actual or constructive knowledge that the battery charger that
`
`Decedent purchased was defective.
`
`78. Additionally, Amazon has an algorithm that identifies defective/dangerous
`
`products. The algorithm should have identified the battery charger as defective.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs were seriously damaged by Amazon’s conduct described in
`
`paragraphs 20-49. These damages are further detailed in paragraphs 50-57.
`
`80.
`
`Plaintiffs also suffered mental anguish due to the fire and other damages
`
`caused by Amazon’s conduct detailed in paragraphs 20-49.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 19
`
`V.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`81. Archie Pickard’s children, Plaintiffs Angela Pickard, Dustin Pickard,
`
`Wendy Elmore, Joni Thompson and Wayne Pickard, were very close to their father and
`
`enjoyed a deep and abiding relationship of love and affection with him.
`
`82. As a result of their father’s death, Plaintiffs suffered wrongful death
`
`damages, including intense grief, anguish, and physical and mental pain as well as
`
`irreparable loss, including loss of consortium and society, in being deprived of the
`
`company, love and affection of their father.
`
`83. Additionally, as a result of the death of their father, Plaintiffs have sustained
`
`economic losses and other losses allowed by law.
`
`84. As the surviving children of Archie Pickard, respectively, Plaintiffs are his
`
`survivors within the meaning of Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2315, et seq., and, as such,
`
`are entitled to recover for the pain and suffering which Archie Pickard endured prior to his
`
`death, as well as for the losses, including past medical expenses, pecuniary and non-
`
`pecuniary, which they have sustained as outlined above.
`
`VI.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all of the allegations in this Original
`
`Complaint, and all amendments and supplements thereto, and all of the defenses in
`
`Defendants’ Original Answer(s), and all supplements and amendments thereto. A jury fee
`
`is being filed contemporaneously with the Plaintiffs’ filing of their original complaint.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 20
`
`VII.
`
`PRAYER
`
`86. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants
`
`be served with a copy of this Original Complaint and cited to appear and answer same, and
`
`that after due proceedings are had, there be judgment herein against Defendants in favor of
`
`Plaintiffs, in such full amounts as are found to be due Plaintiffs under the laws of Louisiana
`
`governing damages in cases of this kind, together with legal interest thereon from date of
`
`judicial demand, until paid, and for all costs of these proceedings and for all general and
`
`equitable relief.
`
`87.
`
`Plaintiffs request prejudgment and post judgment interest at the maximum
`
`rate allowed by law.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 21
`Case 5:20-cv-01448 Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 21
`
`Respectfiilly submitted,
`
`GREGORIO, CHAFIN, JOHNSON,
`
`TABOR, and Fenasci L.L.C.
`9284 Linwood Avenue
`
`Shreveport, LA 71106
`Telephone: (318) 865-8680
`Facsimile: (318).
`
`-8565
`
`_CTabor@gci —1a_wi(mi_
`
`and
`
`MITHOFF LAW
`
`(Attorney Applications for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice Pending)
`
`RICHARD WARREN MITHOFF (T.A.)
`Texas State Bar No. 14228500
`
`rmithoff@mithofflaw.com
`
`JANIE L. JORDAN
`
`Texas State Bar No. 11012700
`
`Penthouse, One Allen Center
`
`500 Dallas, Suite 3450
`
`Houston, Texas 77002
`713-654-1122 tel
`
`713-739-8085 fax
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`
`21
`
`