OneWheel Skateboard Class Action Claims Over Misrepresentation, Breach of Implied Warranty Cleared to Proceed

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all Onewheel skateboard lawsuits has dismissed some class action claims over design defects brought against the manufacturer, Future Motion, but allowed claims for misrepresentation and breach of implied warranty to proceed, while allowing plaintiffs 30 days to refile an amended complaint to address the other counts.

Onewheel skateboards have become a popular alternative to scooters in recent years, featuring a flat surface with only one wheel, which is electrically powered and can accelerate to speeds of about 20 miles per hour. However, after a Onewheel recall was issued in late September 2023, a number of product liability lawsuits and class action claims have been filed, each raising nearly identical allegations that design defects caused devastating accidents, when a Onewheel skateboard nosedived and stopped suddenly.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in each of the lawsuits, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided late last year to consolidate all Onewheel lawsuits as part of an MDL before U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in the Northern District of California, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

While most of the lawsuits have been brought on behalf of consumers who experienced injuries in an accident while riding the skateboard, a consolidated Onewheel class action lawsuit was also filed in the MDL, pursuing damages for all consumers who were sold an allegedly defective product. However, the manufacturer sought to have the class action claims dismissed, arguing that plaintiffs failed to properly state a case.

On July 12, Judge Labson issued a court order (PDF) that agrees some of the claims were not properly filed and dismissed those claims, but also refused to throw out the class action lawsuit outright. Instead, she has given plaintiffs affected by the ruling the opportunity to refile amended complaints that better state their claims that the electric skateboards were defective.

“Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a defect because nosedives are an effect of a defect but not an independent defect and Plaintiffs have identified numerous purportedly defective parts without clearly identifying which of those parts is defective,” Judge Labson wrote. “Plaintiffs argue that they have adequately alleged a defect and they need not allege the causal pathway of the defect to state a claim.”

Future Motion’s attorneys argued that the plaintiffs’ lack of specificity would make discovery “unwieldy and unmanageable”, the order states.

The decision means that the Onewheel class action will move forward, and that plaintiffs who have been dismissed from the case will be allowed to rejoin after a proper filing.

The ruling came about one month before an initial Onewheel settlement conference is scheduled to be held on August 13, which is expected to focus on discussing a resolution for personal injury lawsuits brought on behalf of individuals who suffered fractures and other injuries after their OneWheel skateboard nosedived.

If the litigation can not be resolved early in the pretrial proceedings, it is likely that Judge Freeman will move forward with a bellwether process, where a small group of representative injury claims will be prepared for a series of test trials, to help the parties gauge how jurors are likely to respond to expert testimony and evidence likely to be repeated throughout the OneWheel lawsuits.

Following the MDL proceedings, settlement negotiations and any bellwether trials, if the parties are still unable to settle Onewheel lawsuits or reach another resolution for the litigation, dozens of individual claims may be later remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it originated for separate trial dates in the future.