Parents Score Win in Easton Baseball Bat 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.

Parents who say they purchased youth baseball bats too heavy for their children managed to dodge an attempt by Easton to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Ricky Wisdom alleged in the class action lawsuit against the bat maker that their so-called “youth” baseball bats were advertised at the wrong weights.

Wisdom says that a bat he purchased for his child weighed 25 ounces but was advertised as weighing 22 ounces.

The Easton baseball bats class action lawsuit contended that heavier bats made it more likely for young players to injure themselves.

“Even a small difference in weight of 1 ounce or less is significant and material to the young boys and girls who play and compete with Easton bats,” noted the Easton baseball bat class action.

Most recently, Easton argued that the class action lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish a sufficient injury from buying the allegedly falsely advertised youth bats.

This argument struck out with U.S. District Court Judge Dale S. Fischer, who found that the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient financial injury.

Easton further argued that “the class allegations are legally insufficient” and a reason to send the class action plaintiff home. Judge Fischer again dropped Easton’s argument, noting that its assertion was wrong.

Another reason Easton contended should lead to dismissal of the class action lawsuit is the relation of bankrupt organizations the bat company had recently acquired. Easton argued that the class action allegations were too closely tied to claims related to the bankruptcy.

Judge Fischer again disagreed, finding that those organizations did not need to be brought into the class action lawsuit in order to resolve the allegations.

In their motion opposing dismissal, the purchasers called Easton’s attempts to dodge the class action lawsuit “scattershot.” Pointing out that most of Easton’s arguments rested on procedural arguments, the plaintiff called the attempt to dismiss the class action lawsuit “misguided.”

The plaintiff argued instead that Easton’s allegedly false advertising of the bat caused him and other consumers to spend at least $160, as the plaintiff did, on a bat that was “virtually useless.”

“Plaintiff alleges the bat he purchased was incorrectly labeled, and that he purchased the bat in reasonable reliance on the bat’s labeled weight. This is a sufficiently concrete economic injury to confer Article III standing,” noted Judge Fischer in his order.

Judge Fischer did trim a few claims from the Easton false advertising class action lawsuit. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief in the form of a court order requiring Easton to properly label the bats in the future.

The judge determined that the plaintiff’s assertion that he may purchase bats from Easton again with the injunction was too speculative to support the claim.

Judge Fischer also dumped Easton bat class action claims based on breach of implied and express warranty.

Wisdom and the proposed Class are represented by Robert R. Ahdoot, Theodore W. Maya and Bradley K. King of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC; and Myles McGuire, Paul Geske and Jad Sheikali of McGuire Law PC.

The Easton Baseball Bat False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Wisdom v. Easton Baseball/Softball Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-­cv-­04078, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.