Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court granted a plaintiff motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a Chinese company as a defendant in a products liability suit involving a child who ingested a battery from a wireless remote control.

Caleb and Kasey Allen, individually and on behalf of their child, sued Amazon.com Services, LLC, alleging claims for products liability, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, negligent undertaking, and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs asserted that their child had ingested a battery that allegedly fell out of a wireless remote control mounted on their vehicle’s steering wheel. The vehicle had been owned previously by someone else. At the time the plaintiffs filed their complaint, they had not identified the specific product at issue but claimed that Amazon had promoted and sold the remote control. Subsequent discovery identified the product as a Podofo Double Din Car Stereo with Apple Carplay Android Auto, 7 Inch Touch Screen Bluetooth Radio Car Audio with Backup Camera, Voice Control, FM Radio, Mirror Link, USB Playback, and Charging. The plaintiffs asserted that the product was associated with and/or manufactured and supplied by Shenzhen Cheyang Technology, Co., Ltd. (SCT). Consequently, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint and to join SCT.

Granting the motion, the district court noted that under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. Citing case law, the court said that although this policy is to be applied liberally, a court may deny a motion for leave to amend where there is strong evidence of undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant. Regarding joinder, the court said, Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to be permissively joined as a defendant in an action where a right to relief is asserted against them jointly or severally and where any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Joinder must comport with the principles of fundamental fairness and must not prejudice either side, the court noted, adding that Rule 20 is to be liberally construed in order to promote judicial economy.

Applying these principles here, the court concluded that leave to amend should be granted. The court stated that it was satisfied that the plaintiffs’ request was not driven by bad faith or delay, but rather to join SCT as a defendant in the action. There was no indication an amendment would prejudice Amazon, the court said, as the case was still in the early stages of discovery. Moreover, joinder appeared warranted in that the plaintiffs’ claims against Amazon and SCT arose out of the same transaction or occurrences and involved similar questions of fact and law, including the same allegations against each defendant. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ proposed pleading would not destroy diversity jurisdiction in the case, regardless of SCT’s corporate status.

The court therefore ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within one week.

Citation: Allen v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00195-LK (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: John K. Buche, Austin, Texas; and Joseph P. Corr, Seattle.

Comment: In Huth v. Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equip. Co., 2024 WL 4664723 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2024), the plaintiffs alleged that a dehumidifier malfunctioned and caused damage to their personal property. They sued Midea America Corp., alleging negligence, breach of contract, strict liability, and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint. Granting the motion, the court reasoned that the motion was not in bad faith or dilatory in motive. The motion sought an amendment of the claimed damages and was based on a true change in the calculation of the plaintiffs’ damages, the court said. Stephanie Poyer and Todd Butler, both of Topeka, Kan., represented the plaintiffs.