SharkNinja Wins Dismissal of Smoking Vacuum Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

SharkNinja has won dismissal of a proposed consumer class action lawsuit alleging certain models of their vacuum cleaners are defective and the company violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson granted SharkNinja’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, ruling that Rosenthal’s consumer fraud claim was not subsumed by New Jersey’s Product Liability Act. (PLA)

Plaintiff Mordechai Rosenthal filed the SharkNinja vacuum class action lawsuit in Feb. 2016 in New Jersey federal court, alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The consumer class action lawsuit alleges SharkNinja failed to disclose material facts about its Shark Navigator lift-away bagless upright vacuum.

Specifically, the lawsuit states SharkNinja failed to disclose the vacuum’s power plug’s propensity to fail and generate sparks, smoke, and/or fire during the course of proper use, causing damage to the vacuum, the user’s electrical outlet, wall, and other property.

SharkNinja had argued Rosenthal’s complaint should be dismissed on grounds Rosenthal failed to plead elements of a Consumer Fraud Act claim.

The vacuum cleaner maker told the court that because the core issue of the lawsuit was not the harm caused to the allegedly defective vacuum, but the harm the vacuum caused to the plaintiff’s other property and the physical danger it posed to Rosenthal, it was covered by New Jersey’s Product Liability Act.

Judge Thompson agreed and noted that Rosenthal alleges the defective vacuum had an electrical malfunction that damaged the vacuum and made it inoperable.

According to the judge, this alleged harm is physical damage to the product itself and is excluded from coverage by the PLA.

“Even though the purported damage to the outlet and the wall do not strictly constitute harm to the vacuum itself, they are ‘consequential, anticipated economic losses’ resulting from the alleged defect in the vacuum,” Judge Thompson stated in the eight-page order.

“To the extent Plaintiff describes other harms that would lead to the claim being subsumed by the PLA, such as the risk of physical injury, these harms do not form the ‘core issue’ or ‘heart’ of the lawsuit,” the judge further noted.

Additionally, Judge Thompson agreed with SharkNinja’s argument that Rosenthal failed to state a claim under the CFA, in particular, unlawful conduct and ascertainable loss.

“To meet the ascertainable loss hurdle for a case under the CFA, a plaintiff must establish either out-of-pocket loss or a demonstrated loss in value,” Judge Thompson stated, adding that “[Rosenthal’s] payment of the purchase price of the product does not meet the ascertainable loss requirement.”

In his complaint, Rosenthal alleged he suffered losses to include the purchase price of the vacuum, the potential expense to repair or replace the vacuum, and the potential expense to repair his outlet and wall.

However, Judge Thompson declared that the $149.99 purchase price of the vacuum does not meet the ascertainable loss requirement and that none of the other potential expenses alleged in the complaint include cost estimates.

“Consequently, none of these potential expenses provide the ‘estimate of damages, calculated with a reasonable degree of certainty’ required to demonstrate an ascertainable loss that is not ‘hypothetical or illusory,’” the judge ruled.

Rosenthal is represented by Natalie Finkelman Bennett, James C. Shah and Nathan C. Zipperian of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP.

The SharkNinja Defective Vacuum Class Action Lawsuit is Rosenthal v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01048, in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.