Preview
1 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel:
2 AARON M. HECKAMAN (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)
BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
3 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2300
Houston, TX 77056
4 Telephone: (713) 425-7100
Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
5 E-mail: aheckaman@bchlaw.com
E-mail: onewheel@bchlaw.com
6
ANYA FUCHS, ESQ. (SBN 215105)
7 PEARCE LEWIS LLP
423 Washington Street, Suite 510
8 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 964-5225
9 Facsimile: (415) 830-9879
E-mail: anya@pearcelewis.com
10 E-mail: PLOnewheel@pearcelewis.com
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
13
COORDINATION PROCEEDING Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP)
14 SPECIAL TITLE [Rule 3.550] No. 5305
15 IN RE: FUTURE MOTION ONEWHEEL Assigned for all purposes to:
CASES Judge Timothy R. Volkmann, Dept. 5
16 ________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ JCCP 5305 STATUS UPDATE
17 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Date: March 20, 2024
18 Time: 9:00 a.m.
ALL CASES
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 TO HIS HONOR, THE CLERK OF COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel offer the following update with respect to JCCP 5305:
3 I. Status of JCCP 5305
4 Since the parties were last before this Court on February 9, 2024, the following notable events
5 have transpired, several of which require further action and/or would benefit from this Court’s
6 attention:
7 1. Judicial Council – Orders
8 a. On February 8, 2024, the Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council
9 signed an “Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge” authorizing the Presiding Judge of the Superior
10 Court of Santa Cruz County to assign a Judge of that Court to sit as Coordination Trial Judge.
11 Counsel for Petitioner was served with a copy of this Order, via the U.S. postal service, on February
12 15, 2024. The February 8th Order from the Judicial Council directed Petitioner’s counsel to: “serve a
13 copy of this Order on (1) all parties to the included coordinated actions, and (2) the clerk of each court
14 for filing in each included action, pursuant to rule 3.540(c) of the California Rules of Court.”
15 (Emphasis added.) Counsel for Petitioner complied with that directive, electronically serving a copy
16 of the Order on all parties to the included actions and serving a copy of the Order, via the U.S. postal
17 service, on the clerk of each court for filing in each included action, including the Clerk of the above-
18 captioned Court.
19 b. An Order assigning a coordination trial judge of JCCP 5305 is required by the Judicial
20 Council and is the final step to creating the judicial governance of this coordinated proceeding. To
21 that end, March 11, 2024, counsel for Petitioner Allingham submitted to this Court a proposed Order
22 captioned as follows: “[PROPOSED] ORDER ASSIGNING COORDINATION TRIAL JUDGE
23 PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE VIA THE JUDICIAL
24 COUNCIL.” Once signed, counsel for Petitioner will immediately submit a copy of the Order to the
25 Judicial Council (as well as serve a copy on all parties and file a copy in all included actions as
26 appropriate and required by Rule 3.540(c) of the California Rules of Court). The proposed Order
27 assigns the Honorable Judge Volkmann as coordination trial judge of JCCP 5305 and transfers that
28 assignment, upon the date of Judge Volkmann’s impending retirement, to Judge Cogliati. It is critical
2 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 that his Honor consider this proposed Order prior to leaving the bench. This Order may also be
2 required by some (although certainly not all) Judges presiding over included actions that are still
3 pending in other venues to cause their transfer to the JCCP. 1
4 2. Special Master Burton’s Authority
5 a. Leadership for both sides have met with Special Master Burton, as well as exchanged
6 emails regarding multiple items. Leadership intends to meet with Special Master Burton directly after
7 the March 20th status conference. It is Plaintiffs’ position that it would be an efficient use of the
8 parties’ in-person meeting with the Special Master to meaningfully discuss a proposed trial schedule
9 with the goal of arming the Special Master with an ability to provide a recommendation thereon to
10 this Court. To that end, Plaintiffs’ Leadership intends to submit a proposed trial schedule to the
11 Special Master prior to the March 20th meeting. Special Master Burton’s March 13, 2024 Case
12 Management Status Statement places significant emphasis on the need for a schedule for this JCCP,
13 and as stated herein Plaintiffs’ counsel fully agrees with the Special Master’s anticipated next steps.
14 b. A supplemental Special Master Order expanding the authority of the Special Master to
15 further assist the parties (authority the Special Master has deemed necessary and has already
16 demonstrated via his March 13th Case Management Statement) is appropriate and necessary at this
17 time. To that end, on March 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel submitted a proposed Order to this
18 Court captioned as follows: “[PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE:
19 SPECIAL MASTER.” That proposed supplemental Order expands the Special Master’s authority to
20 assist the parties “in proposing a bellwether trial scheduling order for the Court’s consideration” and
21 specifically delineates what said proposed bellwether trial schedule shall include, i.e.: “[A]t
22 minimum, benchmark deadlines for the following events: (1) completion of Plaintiff Fact Sheets, (2)
23
1
As defense counsel emphasized in a recently filed objection to Plaintiffs’ proposed supplemental
24 order regarding Special Master Burton’s authority, the proposed Order assigning a coordination trial
judge was, indeed, not circulated to defense counsel prior to its submission. As Plaintiffs’ counsel
25 informed defense counsel via a group email exchange with Special Master Burton, the responsibility
of securing this Order falls exclusively within the purview of counsel for the Petitioner who submitted
26 the Petition for Coordination that has resulted in JCCP 5305 (i.e., Pearce Lewis LLP and Bailey
Cowan Heckaman PLLC). The opportunity to review the proposed Order assigning a coordination
27 trial judge should thus not have been expected by defense counsel, especially given that Plaintiffs’
counsel shared this explanation with defense counsel, as a courtesy, prior to submitting the proposed
28 Order to this Court.
3 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 representative case proposals, (3) commencement and close of common fact and expert discovery, (4)
2 commencement and close of bellwether case-specific discovery, (5) applicable bellwether motion
3 practice deadlines, and (6) bellwether trial date(s). Additional deadlines that are either necessary or
4 otherwise helpful to the progression of this litigation may be identified by the Parties and included in
5 the proposed bellwether trial schedule.”
6 i. Special Master Burton has already endorsed this proposed Order. Indeed, it
7 ultimately serves only to memorialize the authority he has already demonstrated
8 and deems necessary, i.e., that which allows him to assist the parties submit a trial
9 scheduling order for this JCCP that will include key benchmark deadlines that
10 will allow this litigation to substantively proceed. As the Court aptly recognized
11 in its January 24, 2024, “it is expected that modifications to this Order may be
12 required. Such amendments are left to the discretion of the Special Master.” (See,
13 January 24, 2024 Order at 4:2–4.)
14 ii. Based upon their years of experience working with national counsel for
15 Defendant, it is Plaintiffs’ experience and position that the parties will not move
16 forward at a reasonable (or acceptable) pace, if at all, without the Special Master’s
17 oversight, guidance, and influence. Several of the actions included in this JCCP
18 have been pending for over two years with almost no activity. This JCCP must be
19 allowed to substantively proceed. Further delay is neither just nor necessary.
20 Entry of a trial scheduling order is the ground floor towards allowing this
21 litigation to proceed and the proposed supplemental Order will allow the Special
22 Master to steer the parties appropriately.
23 iii. Defendant’s recently filed objection to the proposed supplemental Order—
24 wherein it declares said Order to be unnecessary and a trial scheduling order
25 “premature”—serves to exemplify why the specific oversight Plaintiffs seek from
26 the Special Master at this juncture is imperative. A trial scheduling order is not
27 premature. It is, if anything, overdue. The JCCP is well established. It is time for
28 the litigation to substantively proceed. Defendant’s position that a trial scheduling
4 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 order should not be issued until after the Plaintiff Fact Sheets are completed is
2 misplaced and runs contrary to how scheduling orders for coordinated
3 proceedings typically function. Indeed, the MDL scheduling order, attached to
4 Defendant’s objection, reflects completion of the Plaintiff Fact Sheets as a
5 deadline within the scheduling order. Of course, Plaintiffs intend to include
6 submission of Plaintiff Fact Sheets as an early (if not one of the first) deadlines).
7 This is not just an appropriate time to achieve a trial scheduling order, it is the
8 time to do so. Plaintiffs’ counsel will propose a trial schedule to the Special
9 Master prior to the March 20th hearing that will trail the MDL schedule at a
10 reasonable pace. The Special Master’s Case Management Status Statement
11 confirms his readiness to proceed with achieving a trial scheduling order. It would
12 be beneficial for defense counsel to join this conversation.
13 iv. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court sign the proposed supplemental
14 Special Master Order, already endorsed by the Special Master himself, so that the
15 parties may move forward expeditiously.
16 3. Joint Proposed Case Management Order No. 1.
17 Following months of meet and confer efforts, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel, on March 11, 2024,
18 submitted a proposed Order captioned as follows: “[JOINT PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT
19 ORDER NO.1.” This Case Management Order No. 1 memorializes appropriate procedure and process
20 with respect to securing the general framework and functioning of this JCCP.
21 4. Master Pleadings
22 On March 12, 2024, after months of meet and confer efforts regarding the master pleadings,
23 and at defense counsel’s suggestion that the parties submit letter briefs to the Special Master with
24 respect to the disputed issues that remained, Plaintiffs’ Leadership promptly submitted a letter brief to
25 Special Master Burton on the following: Whether it is appropriate for the Master and Short Form
26 Complaints to include (1) a punitive damages claim and (2) a “ghosting” defect allegation. As of the
27 date and time this pleading is filed with this Court, defense counsel has not submitted a letter brief on
28
5 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 their objections to the Master and Short Form Complaint. Plaintiffs’ letter brief to the Special Master
2 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
3 Special Master Burton had communicated his preliminary conclusion that punitive damages
4 are appropriately pleaded in the JCCP.
5 In summary, Plaintiffs’ position with respect to the master pleadings “issues” is as follows:
6 Plaintiffs’ general position:
7 The proposed Master and Short Form Complaints are pleadings intended to be used as an
8 administrative device or mechanism to identify common issues and define the scope of existing and
9 potential claims within this JCCP. They are intended to set forth allegations suitable for adoption by
10 reference in each individual case, as appropriate. This is a necessary and standard procedure within
11 coordinated proceedings. Master pleadings promote judicial efficiency and economy because they
12 provide the JCCP court with a summary of the claims and defenses, and they alleviate the
13 administrative burden of managing potentially hundreds or thousands of individual complaints and
14 answers. As long as relevant and contemplated as amongst the potential allegations to be pursued by
15 the litigants to the included actions, the allegations of such master pleadings should withstand
16 objection.
17 There is no viable basis for Defendant’s objections here at issue. The Petition for Coordination
18 that resulted in JCCP 5305 explicitly contemplates that at least some of the included actions would
19 pursue punitive damages and, further, that all manufacturing, design, and warning defects could and
20 would be pursued within the coordinated proceeding.
21 Defendant is without any legal authority to self-servingly dictate, for the purpose of
22 minimizing its liability or any other reason, the removal of allegations from Plaintiffs’ master
23 pleadings, particularly those expressly contemplated by the Petition for Coordination. Defendant’s
24 apparent discomfort with the exposure to punitive damages by (potentially) hundreds of litigants, does
25 not vest it with authority to usurp the rights of individual plaintiffs from pursuing the full range of
26 available damages. The potential that the litigants to the JCCP will adopt allegations contained in
27 master pleadings is very much to be expected, and anticipated aspect of what a JCCP Defendant must
28 absorb.
6 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 Plaintiffs’ specific position regarding pleading a claim for punitive damages:
2 Prior to the coordination, nearly 70% of the individually filed Complaints against Defendant
3 included a prayer for punitive damages. In fact, the JCCP Court, prior to coordination, denied
4 Defendant’s motion to strike the punitive damages claim alleged in a now resolved Onewheel
5 personal injury action. (See, Smith v. Future Motion, Inc. (Case No. 21CV01320, Santa Cruz Cty.).)
6 In wake of the Court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to strike in Smith, Defendant voluntarily
7 withdrew identical motions filed in other Onewheel personal injury cases, including a now
8 coordinated case. (See, Cohen v. Future Motion, Inc., (Case No. 21CV01879, Santa Cruz Cty.)
9 (action currently pending in JCCP No. 5305); see also Ryder v. Future Motion, Inc., (Case No.
10 21CV01295, Santa Cruz Cty.) (case resolved prior to coordination).) Defendant then unsuccessfully
11 brought a motion for summary adjudication on punitive damages in another resolved Onewheel
12 personal injury case. (See, Anderson v. Future Motion, Inc., Case No. 20CV00909, Santa Cruz Cty.).)
13 Furthermore, as previously confirmed, the Petition for Coordination specifically identifies
14 punitive damages as amongst the forms of relief the included actions would seek and likewise
15 specifically identifies amongst the shared common questions of fact and law that predominate in the
16 included actions several questions narrowly tailored to the question to Defendant’s potential liability
17 for punitive damages.
18 Regardless, punitive damages are, of course, available in product liability actions, like those
19 forming this JCCP. Objections that punitive damages cannot be made available for JCCP litigants to
20 pursue is simply untenable. Indeed, litigants are empowered to seek the full extent of available
21 damages, punitive damages included. Notably, Defendant’s objection is not supported by any legal
22 authority, but rather, only its claim that allowing punitive damages allegations in the Master and Short
23 Form Complaint would unfairly overexpose Defendant. While the tangible potential for its extensive
24 liability may very well be displeasing, Plaintiffs’ Leadership cannot simply agree to minimize that
25 liability by unilaterally removing potential forms of available relief from the master pleadings.
26 Plaintiffs’ specific position regarding including a “ghosting” defect allegation:
27 The proposed Master Complaint voluminously sets forth “general allegations” intended to
28 frame all relevant issues and theories of liability arising from the alleged manufacturing, design, and
7 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 warning defects that are reasonably anticipated to be amongst those pursued in this JCCP. In relevant
2 part, the proposed Master Complaint, under the subheading “Onewheel GT ‘Ghosting’ Defect Results
3 in Recall,” alleges as follows:
4 37. Accompanying the release of the Onewheel GT, approximately 20,000 boards were
equipped with defective footpads. According to Defendant, “[t]he front footpad in the
5 Onewheel GT can fail to disengage after the rider has dismounted, while the board is in
motion and the Onewheel can unexpectedly continue to operate posing an injury hazard
6 to bystanders. (https://recall.onewheel.com/.) Defendant claims to have received “813
reports of board operation after dismount, including 11 injuries such as bruises, friction
7 burns, and a twisted ankle.” (Id.) In claimed cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Defendant issued a recall in August 2022. (Consumer
8 Product Safety Commission, Future Motion recalls Footpads for Onewheel GT Electric
Skateboards Due to Bystander Injury Hazard (Recall Alert), (Aug. 11, 2022),
9 https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2022/Future-Motion-Recalls-Footpads-for-Onewheel-GT-
Electric-Skateboards-Due-to-Bystander-Injury-Hazard-Recall-Alert.)
10
11 Defendant agrees that “ghosting” refers to when the board operates without a rider.
12 The “ghosting” defect is relevant because it was amongst the reasonably anticipated
13 alleged defects. The Petition for Coordination explicitly identified the following: “whether the
14 Onewheel boards have a defect (or multiple defects)” and, further, identified, just by way of example,
15 “whether the Onewheel boards at issue have a footpad sensor with a ‘dead zone; . . . whether
16 Defendant had an ability to design the Onewheel boards to be less dangerous, in what way, and at
17 what monetary costs, but resolved nevertheless to not do so . . . whether, and when, Defendant knew
18 or should have known that the Onewheel boards posed inherent risks to the health and safety of its
19 riders and what, if anything, Defendant did or did not do to warn riders of those risks and/or minimize
20 or eliminate those risks.”
21 That language clearly encompasses the intent of including the “ghosting” defect amongst the
22 category of reasonably anticipated allegations to be litigated in this JCCP. Defendant never objected
23 to the scope of allegations included in the Petition for Coordination or sought to carve out “ghosting”
24 defect claims from the JCCP. Indeed, Defendant’s counsel also never at any time during the years
25 counsel spent discussing the prospect of coordinating the California personal injury actions so much
26 as mentioned, even casually, that actions involving an alleged “ghosting” defect should be excluded
27 from such a JCCP.
28
8 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 To exclude cases alleging a “ghosting” defect runs contrary to the JCCP’s central goal of
2 efficiency and judicial economy. The notion that all product defect actions resulting in personal
3 injury filed against Defendant in California state court are appropriate to be included in the JCCP
4 except those alleging a “ghosting” defect is contrary to the spirit of coordinated proceedings and their
5 mandated goals of efficiency and economy in resolving large numbers of cases asserting common
6 issues of fact and law. Indeed, it would be drastically inefficient and would more than likely result in
7 significant unnecessary costs to litigants and the judiciary to insist that injured persons pursuing a
8 “ghosting” defect, which Defendant admits was present in at least 20,000 boards, must do so outside
9 of the already established JCCP and without the benefits of its (soon to be created) streamlined
10 discovery procedures. There are several manufacturing, design, and warning defects alleged in the
11 cases coordinated in JCCP 5305, and a “ghosting” defect is simply one the alleged defects that the
12 Petition identified as appropriate for inclusion therein.
13 Based upon the above arguments, Plaintiffs have asked the Special Master to reject
14 Defendant’s objections to the punitive damages and “ghosting” defect allegations contained within
15 Plaintiffs’ master pleadings. Defendant’s Master Answer should simply deny those allegations as it
16 does all other defect allegations and damages claims.
17 Plaintiffs propose that the parties meet and confer, with the Special Master’s guidance,
18 regarding the adoption of the master pleadings, after the master pleadings have been agreed upon.
19 Plaintiffs’ Leadership do not believe that they are empowered to require adoption of the Master
20 Complaint nor preclude litigants from pursuing all forms of available relief or pursuing all defect
21 allegations as may be factually appropriate.
22 II. MDL 3087
23 The parallel federal MDL proceeding of the personal injury (and class action) actions pending
24 against Future Motion, Inc., presided over by United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman, has
25 been set to proceed at an aggressive pace and has already started in earnest, with the deadline to
26 complete Plaintiff Facts Sheets having already passed and Plaintiffs’ offensive discovery initiated.
27 Judge Labson Freeman has appointed Anya Fuchs of Pearce Lewis LLP as “Plaintiff’s JCCP-
28 MDL Liaison Counsel” for the personal injury/wrongful death cases to ensure that the federal
9 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
1 coordinated proceeding is kept abreast of the relevant events that occur in this JCCP so as to allow the
2 two coordinated proceedings to proceed harmoniously. Several Plaintiffs’ counsel that represent cases
3 in this JCCP also represent cases in the MDL.
4 As previously stated, Plaintiffs’ JCCP Leadership wish to create a trial schedule that tracks the
5 MDL schedule by a reasonable pace and intend to use the MDL schedule as a starting point to initiate
6 a scheduling discussion with Special Master Burton. Plaintiffs note that the trial scheduling order set
7 forth in the MDL includes the benchmark deadlines that they wish to memorialize in the schedule for
8 this JCCP.
9
10 Respectfully submitted,
11 Dated: March 14, 2024 PEARCE LEWIS LLP
12
13
ANYA FUCHS, ESQ.
14 Co-Liaison, Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Leadership
15
16 Dated: March 14, 2024 BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC LLP
17
18
AARON HECKAMAN, ESQ.
19 Co-Liaison, Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Leadership
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update
EXHIBIT A
March 12, 2024
Sent via email: jburton@johnsburton.com
Mr. John Burton
Special Master, JCCP 5305 / In Re: Future Motion Onewheel Cases (SCSC)
Monterey Bay Mediation
P.O. Box 27455
Fresno, California 93729
Email: jburton@johnsburton.com
Re: Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Letter Brief: JCCP 5305 master pleadings
To Special Master Burton:
Defendant Future Motion, Inc. (“FM”) has objected to certain portions of the proposed Master
and Short Form Complaints in JCCP 5305. Plaintiffs understand FM’s objections as seeking to have
excised from those master pleadings the allegations specific to: (1) punitive damages and (2) a
“ghosting” defect.1 The bases of FM’s objections are, respectively, that: (1) it cannot agree to allow
for the possibility that all litigants in the JCCP will seek punitive damages against FM and said
damages are not available to all litigants and (2) the “ghosting” defect is irrelevant because none of the
actions currently part of the JCCP allege such a defect.
Plaintiffs’ Leadership, by way of this letter brief, offer both a general and specific position with
respect to FM’s objections.
General Position
The proposed Master and Short Form Complaints are pleadings intended to be used as an
administrative device or mechanism to identify common issues and define the scope of existing and
potential claims within this JCCP. They are intended to set forth allegations suitable for adoption by
reference in each individual case, as appropriate. This is a necessary and standard procedure within
coordinated proceedings. Master pleadings promote judicial efficiency and economy because they
provide the JCCP court with a summary of the claims and defenses, and they alleviate the
1 Leadership for the Parties have met and conferred on these two issues numerous times, via e-mail and
zoom calls over the course of several months. The issues have been raised to the Court via multiple
case management statements as well as addressed in open court. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not believe
that additional meet and confer efforts on said issues would not be productive.
1
administrative burden of managing potentially hundreds or thousands of individual complaints and
answers.
As long as relevant and contemplated as amongst the potential allegations to be pursued by the
litigants to the included actions, the allegations of such master pleadings should withstand objection.
There is no viable basis for FM’s objections here at issue. The Petition for Coordination that
resulted in JCCP 5305 explicitly contemplates that at least some of the included actions would pursue
punitive damages and, further, that all manufacturing, design, and warning defects could and would be
pursued within the coordinated proceeding. (See, Exhibit A attached / enclosed herewith,
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Petition for Coordination at 3:16-4:14, 7:16–
8:11.)
FM is without any legal authority to self-servingly dictate, for the purpose of minimizing its
liability or any other reason, the removal of allegations from Plaintiffs’ master pleadings, particularly
those expressly contemplated by the Petition for Coordination. FM’s apparent discomfort with the
exposure to punitive damages by (potentially) hundreds of litigants, does not vest it with authority to
usurp the rights of individual plaintiffs from pursuing the full range of available damages. The
potential that the litigants to the JCCP will adopt allegations contained in master pleadings is very
much to be expected, and anticipated aspect of what a JCCP Defendant must absorb.
Plaintiffs request the Special Master reject FM’s objections to the punitive damages and
“ghosting” defect allegations contained within Plaintiffs’ master pleadings.
Specific Position
1. Punitive Damages
Prior to the coordination, nearly 70% of the individually filed Complaints against FM included
a prayer for punitive damages. In fact, the JCCP Court, prior to coordination, denied FM’s motion to
strike the punitive damages claim alleged in a now resolved Onewheel personal injury action. (See,
Smith v. Future Motion, Inc. (Case No. 21CV01320, Santa Cruz Cty.).) In wake of the Court’s denial
of FM’s motion to strike in Smith, FM voluntarily withdrew identical motions filed in other
Onewheel personal injury cases, including a now coordinated case. (See, Cohen v. Future Motion,
Inc., (Case No. 21CV01879, Santa Cruz Cty.) (action currently pending in JCCP No. 5305); see also
Ryder v. Future Motion, Inc., (Case No. 21CV01295, Santa Cruz Cty.) (case resolved prior to
coordination).) FM then unsuccessfully brought a motion for summary adjudication on punitive
damages in another resolved Onewheel personal injury case. (See, Anderson v. Future Motion, Inc.,
Case No. 20CV00909, Santa Cruz Cty.).) Undeterred, FM now seeks to revisit the punitive damages
issue.
2
Furthermore, as previously confirmed, the Petition for Coordination specifically identifies
punitive damages as amongst the forms of relief the included actions would seek and likewise
specifically identifies amongst the shared common questions of fact and law that predominate in the
included actions several questions narrowly tailored to the question to FM’s potential liability for
punitive damages. (See, Exhibit A at 4:13–14, 7:16–8:3.)
Regardless, punitive damages are, of course, available in product liability actions, like those
forming this JCCP. Objections that punitive damages cannot be made available for JCCP litigants to
pursue is simply untenable. Indeed, litigants are empowered to seek the full extent of available
damages, punitive damages included. Notably, FM’s objection is not supported by any legal
authority,2 but rather, only its claim that allowing punitive damages allegations in the Master and Short
Form Complaint would unfairly overexpose FM. While the tangible potential for its extensive liability
may very well be displeasing, Plaintiffs’ Leadership cannot simply agree to minimize that liability by
unilaterally removing potential forms of available relief from the master pleadings.
2. “Ghosting” Defect Allegations
The proposed Master Complaint voluminously sets forth “general allegations” intended to
frame all relevant issues and theories of liability arising from the alleged manufacturing, design, and
warning defects that are reasonably anticipated to be amongst those pursued in this JCCP. In relevant
part, the proposed Master Complaint, under the subheading “Onewheel GT ‘Ghosting’ Defect Results
in Recall,” alleges as follows:
37. Accompanying the release of the Onewheel GT, approximately 20,000 boards were
equipped with defective footpads. According to FM, “[t]he front footpad in the Onewheel
GT can fail to disengage after the rider has dismounted, while the board is in motion and
the Onewheel can unexpectedly continue to operate posing an injury hazard to bystanders.
(https://recall.onewheel.com/.) FM claims to have received “813 reports of board
operation after dismount, including 11 injuries such as bruises, friction burns, and a
twisted ankle.” (Id.) In claimed cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, FM issued a recall in August 2022. (Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Future Motion recalls Footpads for Onewheel GT Electric Skateboards
Due to Bystander Injury Hazard (Recall Alert), (Aug. 11, 2022),
2
FM’s previous, pre-coordination attempts to limit its exposure to punitive damages were rejected en
toto. (See Smith (Case No. 21CV01320, Santa Cruz Cty.) (denying FM’s motion to strike Onewheel
plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations); see also Anderson (Case No. 20CV00909, Santa Cruz Cty.)
(denying FM’s motion for summary adjudication on Onewheel plaintiffs’ claims for punitive
damages).)
3
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2022/Future-Motion-Recalls-Footpads-for-Onewheel-
GT-Electric-Skateboards-Due-to-Bystander-Injury-Hazard-Recall-Alert.)
(See, Exhibit B attached / enclosed herewith, Proposed Master Compl. at ¶ 37.)
FM agrees that “ghosting” refers to when the board operates without a rider. The “ghosting”
recall itself confirms that “ghosting” is a result of a defective front footpad; entitled “2022 GT Footpad
Recall” the recall confirms as follows: “[t]he front footpad in the Onewheel GT can fail to disengage
after the rider has dismounted while the board is in motion and the Onewheel can unexpectedly
continue to operate, posing an injury hazard to bystanders.” Notwithstanding that agreement, FM
claims that “ghosting” related defect claims are beyond the scope of this JCCP. The Special Master
should reject FM’s arguments for two reasons.
A. The “ghosting” defect is relevant because it was amongst the reasonably anticipated
alleged defects. The Petition for Coordination explicitly identified the following: “whether the
Onewheel boards have a defect (or multiple defects)” and, further, identified, just by way of example,
“whether the Onewheel boards at issue have a footpad sensor with a ‘dead zone; . . . whether FM had
an ability to design the Onewheel boards to be less dangerous, in what way, and at what monetary
costs, but resolved nevertheless to not do so . . . whether, and when, FM knew or should have known
that the Onewheel boards posed inherent risks to the health and safety of its riders and what, if
anything, FM did or did not do to warn riders of those risks and/or minimize or eliminate those risks.”
(See, Exhibit A at 7:16–8:3.)
That language clearly encompasses the intent of including the “ghosting” defect amongst the
category of reasonably anticipated allegations to be litigated in this JCCP. FM never objected to the
scope of allegations included in the Petition for Coordination or sought to carve out “ghosting” defect
claims from the JCCP. Indeed, FM’s counsel also never at any time during the years counsel spent
discussing the prospect of coordinating the California personal injury actions so much as mentioned,
even casually, that actions involving an alleged “ghosting” defect should be excluded from such a
JCCP.
B. To exclude cases alleging a “ghosting” defect runs contrary to the JCCP’s central
goal of efficiency and judicial economy. The notion that all product defect actions resulting in
personal injury filed against FM in California state court are appropriate to be included in the JCCP
except those alleging a “ghosting” defect is contrary to the spirit of coordinated proceedings and their
mandated goals of efficiency and economy in resolving large numbers of cases asserting common
issues of fact and law. Indeed, it would be drastically inefficient and would more than likely result in
significant unnecessary costs to litigants and the judiciary to insist that injured persons pursuing a
4
“ghosting” defect, which FM admits was present in at least 20,000 boards, must do so outside of the
already established JCCP and without the benefits of its (soon to be created) streamlined discovery
procedures. There are several manufacturing, design, and warning defects alleged in the cases
coordinated in JCCP 5305, and a “ghosting” defect is simply one the alleged defects that the Petition
identified as appropriate for inclusion therein.
In light of the above, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Special Master submit an opinion
to the Coordination Trial Judge of JCCP 5305 reflecting that it is both proper and appropriate for the
master pleadings to encompass allegations (and defenses) specific to a claim for punitive damages
claim and an alleged “ghosting” defect.
Sincerely,
Anya Fuchs, Esq.
Co-Liaison, Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Leadership
5
EXHIBIT A
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
28
Defendants.
27
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
TIMOTHY F. PEARCE, ESQ. (SBN 215223)
RECEIVED
26 Judicial Council of California
STUART B. LEWIS, FSQ. (SBN 321824)
05
V.
/
ANYA FUCHS, ESQ. (SBN 215105) y OCT 20 mn:
25
PEARCE LEWIS LLP Plaintiff, | Filing Date: 9-26-2022
423 Washington Street, Suite 510 Case No.: 22CV02067
24
"11
vey -
JAMES
~ APPLEGATE,
~ Santa Cruz Countyay.
Superior
-
Court
‘Telephone (415) 964-5225
23
Facsimile (415) 830-9879 Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.501, et seq.
tim@pearcelewis.com Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 404, et seq.
22
stuart@pearcelewis.com
21
anya@pearcelewis.com FOR COORDINATION
PLonewheel@pearcelewis.com AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
20
Defendants. | MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AARON M. HECKAMAN (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
Tap
.
AN ANT TT
19
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES
™ 2--*5-"nated®
1-100, Filing Date: 3-11-2022
BALLEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC Case No.: 22CV00518
1360 Post Oak Boulev. Vv.
', Suite 2300 Santa Cruz or Court
18
Houston, TX 77056
10 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Plaintiff, | JCCP No. 5
17
Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
11 MYLESnALLINGHAM,1 Judicial Council Coordination Proceedin
16
reowan@bchlaw.com
12 Onewheel@bchlaw.com
15 CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
13 Attorneys for Petitioner MYLro ALLINGHAM
14
14
13 MYLES ALLINGHAM
Attorneys for Petitioner
vUDimi1aAL CUUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
15
12 Onewheel@bchlaw.com CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
reowan(@bchlaw.com
16 rect AT VT TATSST TAR A
11
pany
aheckaman@bchlaw.com Judicial Council Coordination Proceedin
Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
17
10 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Plaintiff, JCCP No. 5
Houston, TX 77056
18
1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2300 Santa Cruz or Court
19
BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN
i .
PLLC
.
yee an
Case No.: 22CV00518
ROBERT W. COWAN (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)Filing Date: 3-11-2022
20
AARON M. HECKAMAN (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)
Detendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
21
PLonewheel@pearcelewis.com AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
anya@pearcelewis.com FOR COORDINATION
stuart@pearcelewis.com
22
tim@pearcelewis.com Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 404, et seq.
Facsimile (415) 830-9879 Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.501, et seq.
23
Telephone (415) 964-5225
Pangea nami Boye
San Francisco, CA 94111 Santa Cruz County Superior Court
24
423 Washington Street, Suite 510 Case No.: 22CV02067
25
PEARCE LEWIS LLP Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-26-2022
ANYA FUCHS, ESQ. (SBN 215105)
26
STUART B. LEWIS, ESQ. (SBN 321824)
Judicial Council of California
TIMOTHY F. PEARCE, ESQ. (SBN 215223)
27
FULURL MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, RECEIVED
Defendants.
28
i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
JOHN ARCHER, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
1 Case No.: 22CV01018
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 5-20-2022
2
v.
3
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
4
Defendants.
5 JASON ARENS, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No.: 22CV00520
6 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 3-11-2022
7 v.
8 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
9 Defendants.
BRADFORD ASHBY, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
10 Case No.: 23CV01417
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 6-16-2023
11
v.
12
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
13
Defendants.
14 GARRETT BACKSTROM, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No.: 23CV01644
15 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 7-13-2023
16 v.
17 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
18 Defendants.
AUSTIN BAKER, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
19 Case No.: 23CV01706
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 7-19-2023
20
v.
21
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
22
Defendants.
23 RYAN BANKS, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No.: 23CV01707
24 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 7-19-2023
25 v.
26 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
27 Defendants.
28
ii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
MATTHEW BENNER, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
1 Case No.: 23CV01432
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 6-16-2023
2
v.
3
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
4
Defendants.
5 DOUGLAS BILODEAU, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No.: 23CV02263
6 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-21-2023
7 v.
8 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
9 Defendants.
CODY BIRCH, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
10 Case No.: 22CV02737
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 12-14-2022
11
v.
12
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
13
Defendants.
14 WESLEY BLAINE, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No.: 23CV02264
15 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-21-2023
16 v.
17 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
18 Defendants.
BRIAN BLIETZ, Santa Clara County Superior Court
19 Case No.: 21CV389464
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 12-8-2021
20
v.
21
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
22
Defendants.
23 DREW BLIMKA, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No.: 22CV02519
24 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 11-14-2022
25 v.
26 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
27 Defendants.
28
iii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION
JESSE BLODGETT, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
1 Case No.: 22CV02054
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-22-2022
2
v.
3
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
4
Defendants.
5 TYLER BRADSHAW, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Case No.: 22CV00423
6 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 2-28-2022
7 v.
8 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
9 Defendants.
SPENCER BRINGHURST, Santa Cruz County Superior Court
10 Case No.: 21CV03080
Plaintiff, Filing Date: 12-28-2021
11
v.
12
FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
13
Defendants.
14 MICHAEL BRISKMAN, Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No.: 22STCV31420
15 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-26-2022
16 v.
17 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100,
18 Defendants.
ELLEN BROERS and JEREMY RICKMAN, San Diego County Superior Court
19 Case No.: 37-2021-00051589
Plaintiffs, Filing Da
Preview
1 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel: 2 AARON M. HECKAMAN (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 3 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77056 4 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 5 E-mail: aheckaman@bchlaw.com E-mail: onewheel@bchlaw.com 6 ANYA FUCHS, ESQ. (SBN 215105) 7 PEARCE LEWIS LLP 423 Washington Street, Suite 510 8 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 964-5225 9 Facsimile: (415) 830-9879 E-mail: anya@pearcelewis.com 10 E-mail: PLOnewheel@pearcelewis.com 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 13 COORDINATION PROCEEDING Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) 14 SPECIAL TITLE [Rule 3.550] No. 5305 15 IN RE: FUTURE MOTION ONEWHEEL Assigned for all purposes to: CASES Judge Timothy R. Volkmann, Dept. 5 16 ________________________________________ PLAINTIFFS’ JCCP 5305 STATUS UPDATE 17 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Date: March 20, 2024 18 Time: 9:00 a.m. ALL CASES 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 TO HIS HONOR, THE CLERK OF COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel offer the following update with respect to JCCP 5305: 3 I. Status of JCCP 5305 4 Since the parties were last before this Court on February 9, 2024, the following notable events 5 have transpired, several of which require further action and/or would benefit from this Court’s 6 attention: 7 1. Judicial Council – Orders 8 a. On February 8, 2024, the Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council 9 signed an “Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge” authorizing the Presiding Judge of the Superior 10 Court of Santa Cruz County to assign a Judge of that Court to sit as Coordination Trial Judge. 11 Counsel for Petitioner was served with a copy of this Order, via the U.S. postal service, on February 12 15, 2024. The February 8th Order from the Judicial Council directed Petitioner’s counsel to: “serve a 13 copy of this Order on (1) all parties to the included coordinated actions, and (2) the clerk of each court 14 for filing in each included action, pursuant to rule 3.540(c) of the California Rules of Court.” 15 (Emphasis added.) Counsel for Petitioner complied with that directive, electronically serving a copy 16 of the Order on all parties to the included actions and serving a copy of the Order, via the U.S. postal 17 service, on the clerk of each court for filing in each included action, including the Clerk of the above- 18 captioned Court. 19 b. An Order assigning a coordination trial judge of JCCP 5305 is required by the Judicial 20 Council and is the final step to creating the judicial governance of this coordinated proceeding. To 21 that end, March 11, 2024, counsel for Petitioner Allingham submitted to this Court a proposed Order 22 captioned as follows: “[PROPOSED] ORDER ASSIGNING COORDINATION TRIAL JUDGE 23 PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE VIA THE JUDICIAL 24 COUNCIL.” Once signed, counsel for Petitioner will immediately submit a copy of the Order to the 25 Judicial Council (as well as serve a copy on all parties and file a copy in all included actions as 26 appropriate and required by Rule 3.540(c) of the California Rules of Court). The proposed Order 27 assigns the Honorable Judge Volkmann as coordination trial judge of JCCP 5305 and transfers that 28 assignment, upon the date of Judge Volkmann’s impending retirement, to Judge Cogliati. It is critical 2 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 that his Honor consider this proposed Order prior to leaving the bench. This Order may also be 2 required by some (although certainly not all) Judges presiding over included actions that are still 3 pending in other venues to cause their transfer to the JCCP. 1 4 2. Special Master Burton’s Authority 5 a. Leadership for both sides have met with Special Master Burton, as well as exchanged 6 emails regarding multiple items. Leadership intends to meet with Special Master Burton directly after 7 the March 20th status conference. It is Plaintiffs’ position that it would be an efficient use of the 8 parties’ in-person meeting with the Special Master to meaningfully discuss a proposed trial schedule 9 with the goal of arming the Special Master with an ability to provide a recommendation thereon to 10 this Court. To that end, Plaintiffs’ Leadership intends to submit a proposed trial schedule to the 11 Special Master prior to the March 20th meeting. Special Master Burton’s March 13, 2024 Case 12 Management Status Statement places significant emphasis on the need for a schedule for this JCCP, 13 and as stated herein Plaintiffs’ counsel fully agrees with the Special Master’s anticipated next steps. 14 b. A supplemental Special Master Order expanding the authority of the Special Master to 15 further assist the parties (authority the Special Master has deemed necessary and has already 16 demonstrated via his March 13th Case Management Statement) is appropriate and necessary at this 17 time. To that end, on March 12, 2024, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel submitted a proposed Order to this 18 Court captioned as follows: “[PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE: 19 SPECIAL MASTER.” That proposed supplemental Order expands the Special Master’s authority to 20 assist the parties “in proposing a bellwether trial scheduling order for the Court’s consideration” and 21 specifically delineates what said proposed bellwether trial schedule shall include, i.e.: “[A]t 22 minimum, benchmark deadlines for the following events: (1) completion of Plaintiff Fact Sheets, (2) 23 1 As defense counsel emphasized in a recently filed objection to Plaintiffs’ proposed supplemental 24 order regarding Special Master Burton’s authority, the proposed Order assigning a coordination trial judge was, indeed, not circulated to defense counsel prior to its submission. As Plaintiffs’ counsel 25 informed defense counsel via a group email exchange with Special Master Burton, the responsibility of securing this Order falls exclusively within the purview of counsel for the Petitioner who submitted 26 the Petition for Coordination that has resulted in JCCP 5305 (i.e., Pearce Lewis LLP and Bailey Cowan Heckaman PLLC). The opportunity to review the proposed Order assigning a coordination 27 trial judge should thus not have been expected by defense counsel, especially given that Plaintiffs’ counsel shared this explanation with defense counsel, as a courtesy, prior to submitting the proposed 28 Order to this Court. 3 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 representative case proposals, (3) commencement and close of common fact and expert discovery, (4) 2 commencement and close of bellwether case-specific discovery, (5) applicable bellwether motion 3 practice deadlines, and (6) bellwether trial date(s). Additional deadlines that are either necessary or 4 otherwise helpful to the progression of this litigation may be identified by the Parties and included in 5 the proposed bellwether trial schedule.” 6 i. Special Master Burton has already endorsed this proposed Order. Indeed, it 7 ultimately serves only to memorialize the authority he has already demonstrated 8 and deems necessary, i.e., that which allows him to assist the parties submit a trial 9 scheduling order for this JCCP that will include key benchmark deadlines that 10 will allow this litigation to substantively proceed. As the Court aptly recognized 11 in its January 24, 2024, “it is expected that modifications to this Order may be 12 required. Such amendments are left to the discretion of the Special Master.” (See, 13 January 24, 2024 Order at 4:2–4.) 14 ii. Based upon their years of experience working with national counsel for 15 Defendant, it is Plaintiffs’ experience and position that the parties will not move 16 forward at a reasonable (or acceptable) pace, if at all, without the Special Master’s 17 oversight, guidance, and influence. Several of the actions included in this JCCP 18 have been pending for over two years with almost no activity. This JCCP must be 19 allowed to substantively proceed. Further delay is neither just nor necessary. 20 Entry of a trial scheduling order is the ground floor towards allowing this 21 litigation to proceed and the proposed supplemental Order will allow the Special 22 Master to steer the parties appropriately. 23 iii. Defendant’s recently filed objection to the proposed supplemental Order— 24 wherein it declares said Order to be unnecessary and a trial scheduling order 25 “premature”—serves to exemplify why the specific oversight Plaintiffs seek from 26 the Special Master at this juncture is imperative. A trial scheduling order is not 27 premature. It is, if anything, overdue. The JCCP is well established. It is time for 28 the litigation to substantively proceed. Defendant’s position that a trial scheduling 4 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 order should not be issued until after the Plaintiff Fact Sheets are completed is 2 misplaced and runs contrary to how scheduling orders for coordinated 3 proceedings typically function. Indeed, the MDL scheduling order, attached to 4 Defendant’s objection, reflects completion of the Plaintiff Fact Sheets as a 5 deadline within the scheduling order. Of course, Plaintiffs intend to include 6 submission of Plaintiff Fact Sheets as an early (if not one of the first) deadlines). 7 This is not just an appropriate time to achieve a trial scheduling order, it is the 8 time to do so. Plaintiffs’ counsel will propose a trial schedule to the Special 9 Master prior to the March 20th hearing that will trail the MDL schedule at a 10 reasonable pace. The Special Master’s Case Management Status Statement 11 confirms his readiness to proceed with achieving a trial scheduling order. It would 12 be beneficial for defense counsel to join this conversation. 13 iv. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court sign the proposed supplemental 14 Special Master Order, already endorsed by the Special Master himself, so that the 15 parties may move forward expeditiously. 16 3. Joint Proposed Case Management Order No. 1. 17 Following months of meet and confer efforts, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel, on March 11, 2024, 18 submitted a proposed Order captioned as follows: “[JOINT PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT 19 ORDER NO.1.” This Case Management Order No. 1 memorializes appropriate procedure and process 20 with respect to securing the general framework and functioning of this JCCP. 21 4. Master Pleadings 22 On March 12, 2024, after months of meet and confer efforts regarding the master pleadings, 23 and at defense counsel’s suggestion that the parties submit letter briefs to the Special Master with 24 respect to the disputed issues that remained, Plaintiffs’ Leadership promptly submitted a letter brief to 25 Special Master Burton on the following: Whether it is appropriate for the Master and Short Form 26 Complaints to include (1) a punitive damages claim and (2) a “ghosting” defect allegation. As of the 27 date and time this pleading is filed with this Court, defense counsel has not submitted a letter brief on 28 5 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 their objections to the Master and Short Form Complaint. Plaintiffs’ letter brief to the Special Master 2 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 3 Special Master Burton had communicated his preliminary conclusion that punitive damages 4 are appropriately pleaded in the JCCP. 5 In summary, Plaintiffs’ position with respect to the master pleadings “issues” is as follows: 6 Plaintiffs’ general position: 7 The proposed Master and Short Form Complaints are pleadings intended to be used as an 8 administrative device or mechanism to identify common issues and define the scope of existing and 9 potential claims within this JCCP. They are intended to set forth allegations suitable for adoption by 10 reference in each individual case, as appropriate. This is a necessary and standard procedure within 11 coordinated proceedings. Master pleadings promote judicial efficiency and economy because they 12 provide the JCCP court with a summary of the claims and defenses, and they alleviate the 13 administrative burden of managing potentially hundreds or thousands of individual complaints and 14 answers. As long as relevant and contemplated as amongst the potential allegations to be pursued by 15 the litigants to the included actions, the allegations of such master pleadings should withstand 16 objection. 17 There is no viable basis for Defendant’s objections here at issue. The Petition for Coordination 18 that resulted in JCCP 5305 explicitly contemplates that at least some of the included actions would 19 pursue punitive damages and, further, that all manufacturing, design, and warning defects could and 20 would be pursued within the coordinated proceeding. 21 Defendant is without any legal authority to self-servingly dictate, for the purpose of 22 minimizing its liability or any other reason, the removal of allegations from Plaintiffs’ master 23 pleadings, particularly those expressly contemplated by the Petition for Coordination. Defendant’s 24 apparent discomfort with the exposure to punitive damages by (potentially) hundreds of litigants, does 25 not vest it with authority to usurp the rights of individual plaintiffs from pursuing the full range of 26 available damages. The potential that the litigants to the JCCP will adopt allegations contained in 27 master pleadings is very much to be expected, and anticipated aspect of what a JCCP Defendant must 28 absorb. 6 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 Plaintiffs’ specific position regarding pleading a claim for punitive damages: 2 Prior to the coordination, nearly 70% of the individually filed Complaints against Defendant 3 included a prayer for punitive damages. In fact, the JCCP Court, prior to coordination, denied 4 Defendant’s motion to strike the punitive damages claim alleged in a now resolved Onewheel 5 personal injury action. (See, Smith v. Future Motion, Inc. (Case No. 21CV01320, Santa Cruz Cty.).) 6 In wake of the Court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to strike in Smith, Defendant voluntarily 7 withdrew identical motions filed in other Onewheel personal injury cases, including a now 8 coordinated case. (See, Cohen v. Future Motion, Inc., (Case No. 21CV01879, Santa Cruz Cty.) 9 (action currently pending in JCCP No. 5305); see also Ryder v. Future Motion, Inc., (Case No. 10 21CV01295, Santa Cruz Cty.) (case resolved prior to coordination).) Defendant then unsuccessfully 11 brought a motion for summary adjudication on punitive damages in another resolved Onewheel 12 personal injury case. (See, Anderson v. Future Motion, Inc., Case No. 20CV00909, Santa Cruz Cty.).) 13 Furthermore, as previously confirmed, the Petition for Coordination specifically identifies 14 punitive damages as amongst the forms of relief the included actions would seek and likewise 15 specifically identifies amongst the shared common questions of fact and law that predominate in the 16 included actions several questions narrowly tailored to the question to Defendant’s potential liability 17 for punitive damages. 18 Regardless, punitive damages are, of course, available in product liability actions, like those 19 forming this JCCP. Objections that punitive damages cannot be made available for JCCP litigants to 20 pursue is simply untenable. Indeed, litigants are empowered to seek the full extent of available 21 damages, punitive damages included. Notably, Defendant’s objection is not supported by any legal 22 authority, but rather, only its claim that allowing punitive damages allegations in the Master and Short 23 Form Complaint would unfairly overexpose Defendant. While the tangible potential for its extensive 24 liability may very well be displeasing, Plaintiffs’ Leadership cannot simply agree to minimize that 25 liability by unilaterally removing potential forms of available relief from the master pleadings. 26 Plaintiffs’ specific position regarding including a “ghosting” defect allegation: 27 The proposed Master Complaint voluminously sets forth “general allegations” intended to 28 frame all relevant issues and theories of liability arising from the alleged manufacturing, design, and 7 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 warning defects that are reasonably anticipated to be amongst those pursued in this JCCP. In relevant 2 part, the proposed Master Complaint, under the subheading “Onewheel GT ‘Ghosting’ Defect Results 3 in Recall,” alleges as follows: 4 37. Accompanying the release of the Onewheel GT, approximately 20,000 boards were equipped with defective footpads. According to Defendant, “[t]he front footpad in the 5 Onewheel GT can fail to disengage after the rider has dismounted, while the board is in motion and the Onewheel can unexpectedly continue to operate posing an injury hazard 6 to bystanders. (https://recall.onewheel.com/.) Defendant claims to have received “813 reports of board operation after dismount, including 11 injuries such as bruises, friction 7 burns, and a twisted ankle.” (Id.) In claimed cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Defendant issued a recall in August 2022. (Consumer 8 Product Safety Commission, Future Motion recalls Footpads for Onewheel GT Electric Skateboards Due to Bystander Injury Hazard (Recall Alert), (Aug. 11, 2022), 9 https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2022/Future-Motion-Recalls-Footpads-for-Onewheel-GT- Electric-Skateboards-Due-to-Bystander-Injury-Hazard-Recall-Alert.) 10 11 Defendant agrees that “ghosting” refers to when the board operates without a rider. 12 The “ghosting” defect is relevant because it was amongst the reasonably anticipated 13 alleged defects. The Petition for Coordination explicitly identified the following: “whether the 14 Onewheel boards have a defect (or multiple defects)” and, further, identified, just by way of example, 15 “whether the Onewheel boards at issue have a footpad sensor with a ‘dead zone; . . . whether 16 Defendant had an ability to design the Onewheel boards to be less dangerous, in what way, and at 17 what monetary costs, but resolved nevertheless to not do so . . . whether, and when, Defendant knew 18 or should have known that the Onewheel boards posed inherent risks to the health and safety of its 19 riders and what, if anything, Defendant did or did not do to warn riders of those risks and/or minimize 20 or eliminate those risks.” 21 That language clearly encompasses the intent of including the “ghosting” defect amongst the 22 category of reasonably anticipated allegations to be litigated in this JCCP. Defendant never objected 23 to the scope of allegations included in the Petition for Coordination or sought to carve out “ghosting” 24 defect claims from the JCCP. Indeed, Defendant’s counsel also never at any time during the years 25 counsel spent discussing the prospect of coordinating the California personal injury actions so much 26 as mentioned, even casually, that actions involving an alleged “ghosting” defect should be excluded 27 from such a JCCP. 28 8 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 To exclude cases alleging a “ghosting” defect runs contrary to the JCCP’s central goal of 2 efficiency and judicial economy. The notion that all product defect actions resulting in personal 3 injury filed against Defendant in California state court are appropriate to be included in the JCCP 4 except those alleging a “ghosting” defect is contrary to the spirit of coordinated proceedings and their 5 mandated goals of efficiency and economy in resolving large numbers of cases asserting common 6 issues of fact and law. Indeed, it would be drastically inefficient and would more than likely result in 7 significant unnecessary costs to litigants and the judiciary to insist that injured persons pursuing a 8 “ghosting” defect, which Defendant admits was present in at least 20,000 boards, must do so outside 9 of the already established JCCP and without the benefits of its (soon to be created) streamlined 10 discovery procedures. There are several manufacturing, design, and warning defects alleged in the 11 cases coordinated in JCCP 5305, and a “ghosting” defect is simply one the alleged defects that the 12 Petition identified as appropriate for inclusion therein. 13 Based upon the above arguments, Plaintiffs have asked the Special Master to reject 14 Defendant’s objections to the punitive damages and “ghosting” defect allegations contained within 15 Plaintiffs’ master pleadings. Defendant’s Master Answer should simply deny those allegations as it 16 does all other defect allegations and damages claims. 17 Plaintiffs propose that the parties meet and confer, with the Special Master’s guidance, 18 regarding the adoption of the master pleadings, after the master pleadings have been agreed upon. 19 Plaintiffs’ Leadership do not believe that they are empowered to require adoption of the Master 20 Complaint nor preclude litigants from pursuing all forms of available relief or pursuing all defect 21 allegations as may be factually appropriate. 22 II. MDL 3087 23 The parallel federal MDL proceeding of the personal injury (and class action) actions pending 24 against Future Motion, Inc., presided over by United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman, has 25 been set to proceed at an aggressive pace and has already started in earnest, with the deadline to 26 complete Plaintiff Facts Sheets having already passed and Plaintiffs’ offensive discovery initiated. 27 Judge Labson Freeman has appointed Anya Fuchs of Pearce Lewis LLP as “Plaintiff’s JCCP- 28 MDL Liaison Counsel” for the personal injury/wrongful death cases to ensure that the federal 9 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update 1 coordinated proceeding is kept abreast of the relevant events that occur in this JCCP so as to allow the 2 two coordinated proceedings to proceed harmoniously. Several Plaintiffs’ counsel that represent cases 3 in this JCCP also represent cases in the MDL. 4 As previously stated, Plaintiffs’ JCCP Leadership wish to create a trial schedule that tracks the 5 MDL schedule by a reasonable pace and intend to use the MDL schedule as a starting point to initiate 6 a scheduling discussion with Special Master Burton. Plaintiffs note that the trial scheduling order set 7 forth in the MDL includes the benchmark deadlines that they wish to memorialize in the schedule for 8 this JCCP. 9 10 Respectfully submitted, 11 Dated: March 14, 2024 PEARCE LEWIS LLP 12 13 ANYA FUCHS, ESQ. 14 Co-Liaison, Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Leadership 15 16 Dated: March 14, 2024 BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC LLP 17 18 AARON HECKAMAN, ESQ. 19 Co-Liaison, Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Leadership 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Status Update EXHIBIT A March 12, 2024 Sent via email: jburton@johnsburton.com Mr. John Burton Special Master, JCCP 5305 / In Re: Future Motion Onewheel Cases (SCSC) Monterey Bay Mediation P.O. Box 27455 Fresno, California 93729 Email: jburton@johnsburton.com Re: Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Letter Brief: JCCP 5305 master pleadings To Special Master Burton: Defendant Future Motion, Inc. (“FM”) has objected to certain portions of the proposed Master and Short Form Complaints in JCCP 5305. Plaintiffs understand FM’s objections as seeking to have excised from those master pleadings the allegations specific to: (1) punitive damages and (2) a “ghosting” defect.1 The bases of FM’s objections are, respectively, that: (1) it cannot agree to allow for the possibility that all litigants in the JCCP will seek punitive damages against FM and said damages are not available to all litigants and (2) the “ghosting” defect is irrelevant because none of the actions currently part of the JCCP allege such a defect. Plaintiffs’ Leadership, by way of this letter brief, offer both a general and specific position with respect to FM’s objections. General Position The proposed Master and Short Form Complaints are pleadings intended to be used as an administrative device or mechanism to identify common issues and define the scope of existing and potential claims within this JCCP. They are intended to set forth allegations suitable for adoption by reference in each individual case, as appropriate. This is a necessary and standard procedure within coordinated proceedings. Master pleadings promote judicial efficiency and economy because they provide the JCCP court with a summary of the claims and defenses, and they alleviate the 1 Leadership for the Parties have met and conferred on these two issues numerous times, via e-mail and zoom calls over the course of several months. The issues have been raised to the Court via multiple case management statements as well as addressed in open court. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not believe that additional meet and confer efforts on said issues would not be productive. 1 administrative burden of managing potentially hundreds or thousands of individual complaints and answers. As long as relevant and contemplated as amongst the potential allegations to be pursued by the litigants to the included actions, the allegations of such master pleadings should withstand objection. There is no viable basis for FM’s objections here at issue. The Petition for Coordination that resulted in JCCP 5305 explicitly contemplates that at least some of the included actions would pursue punitive damages and, further, that all manufacturing, design, and warning defects could and would be pursued within the coordinated proceeding. (See, Exhibit A attached / enclosed herewith, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Petition for Coordination at 3:16-4:14, 7:16– 8:11.) FM is without any legal authority to self-servingly dictate, for the purpose of minimizing its liability or any other reason, the removal of allegations from Plaintiffs’ master pleadings, particularly those expressly contemplated by the Petition for Coordination. FM’s apparent discomfort with the exposure to punitive damages by (potentially) hundreds of litigants, does not vest it with authority to usurp the rights of individual plaintiffs from pursuing the full range of available damages. The potential that the litigants to the JCCP will adopt allegations contained in master pleadings is very much to be expected, and anticipated aspect of what a JCCP Defendant must absorb. Plaintiffs request the Special Master reject FM’s objections to the punitive damages and “ghosting” defect allegations contained within Plaintiffs’ master pleadings. Specific Position 1. Punitive Damages Prior to the coordination, nearly 70% of the individually filed Complaints against FM included a prayer for punitive damages. In fact, the JCCP Court, prior to coordination, denied FM’s motion to strike the punitive damages claim alleged in a now resolved Onewheel personal injury action. (See, Smith v. Future Motion, Inc. (Case No. 21CV01320, Santa Cruz Cty.).) In wake of the Court’s denial of FM’s motion to strike in Smith, FM voluntarily withdrew identical motions filed in other Onewheel personal injury cases, including a now coordinated case. (See, Cohen v. Future Motion, Inc., (Case No. 21CV01879, Santa Cruz Cty.) (action currently pending in JCCP No. 5305); see also Ryder v. Future Motion, Inc., (Case No. 21CV01295, Santa Cruz Cty.) (case resolved prior to coordination).) FM then unsuccessfully brought a motion for summary adjudication on punitive damages in another resolved Onewheel personal injury case. (See, Anderson v. Future Motion, Inc., Case No. 20CV00909, Santa Cruz Cty.).) Undeterred, FM now seeks to revisit the punitive damages issue. 2 Furthermore, as previously confirmed, the Petition for Coordination specifically identifies punitive damages as amongst the forms of relief the included actions would seek and likewise specifically identifies amongst the shared common questions of fact and law that predominate in the included actions several questions narrowly tailored to the question to FM’s potential liability for punitive damages. (See, Exhibit A at 4:13–14, 7:16–8:3.) Regardless, punitive damages are, of course, available in product liability actions, like those forming this JCCP. Objections that punitive damages cannot be made available for JCCP litigants to pursue is simply untenable. Indeed, litigants are empowered to seek the full extent of available damages, punitive damages included. Notably, FM’s objection is not supported by any legal authority,2 but rather, only its claim that allowing punitive damages allegations in the Master and Short Form Complaint would unfairly overexpose FM. While the tangible potential for its extensive liability may very well be displeasing, Plaintiffs’ Leadership cannot simply agree to minimize that liability by unilaterally removing potential forms of available relief from the master pleadings. 2. “Ghosting” Defect Allegations The proposed Master Complaint voluminously sets forth “general allegations” intended to frame all relevant issues and theories of liability arising from the alleged manufacturing, design, and warning defects that are reasonably anticipated to be amongst those pursued in this JCCP. In relevant part, the proposed Master Complaint, under the subheading “Onewheel GT ‘Ghosting’ Defect Results in Recall,” alleges as follows: 37. Accompanying the release of the Onewheel GT, approximately 20,000 boards were equipped with defective footpads. According to FM, “[t]he front footpad in the Onewheel GT can fail to disengage after the rider has dismounted, while the board is in motion and the Onewheel can unexpectedly continue to operate posing an injury hazard to bystanders. (https://recall.onewheel.com/.) FM claims to have received “813 reports of board operation after dismount, including 11 injuries such as bruises, friction burns, and a twisted ankle.” (Id.) In claimed cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, FM issued a recall in August 2022. (Consumer Product Safety Commission, Future Motion recalls Footpads for Onewheel GT Electric Skateboards Due to Bystander Injury Hazard (Recall Alert), (Aug. 11, 2022), 2 FM’s previous, pre-coordination attempts to limit its exposure to punitive damages were rejected en toto. (See Smith (Case No. 21CV01320, Santa Cruz Cty.) (denying FM’s motion to strike Onewheel plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations); see also Anderson (Case No. 20CV00909, Santa Cruz Cty.) (denying FM’s motion for summary adjudication on Onewheel plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages).) 3 https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2022/Future-Motion-Recalls-Footpads-for-Onewheel- GT-Electric-Skateboards-Due-to-Bystander-Injury-Hazard-Recall-Alert.) (See, Exhibit B attached / enclosed herewith, Proposed Master Compl. at ¶ 37.) FM agrees that “ghosting” refers to when the board operates without a rider. The “ghosting” recall itself confirms that “ghosting” is a result of a defective front footpad; entitled “2022 GT Footpad Recall” the recall confirms as follows: “[t]he front footpad in the Onewheel GT can fail to disengage after the rider has dismounted while the board is in motion and the Onewheel can unexpectedly continue to operate, posing an injury hazard to bystanders.” Notwithstanding that agreement, FM claims that “ghosting” related defect claims are beyond the scope of this JCCP. The Special Master should reject FM’s arguments for two reasons. A. The “ghosting” defect is relevant because it was amongst the reasonably anticipated alleged defects. The Petition for Coordination explicitly identified the following: “whether the Onewheel boards have a defect (or multiple defects)” and, further, identified, just by way of example, “whether the Onewheel boards at issue have a footpad sensor with a ‘dead zone; . . . whether FM had an ability to design the Onewheel boards to be less dangerous, in what way, and at what monetary costs, but resolved nevertheless to not do so . . . whether, and when, FM knew or should have known that the Onewheel boards posed inherent risks to the health and safety of its riders and what, if anything, FM did or did not do to warn riders of those risks and/or minimize or eliminate those risks.” (See, Exhibit A at 7:16–8:3.) That language clearly encompasses the intent of including the “ghosting” defect amongst the category of reasonably anticipated allegations to be litigated in this JCCP. FM never objected to the scope of allegations included in the Petition for Coordination or sought to carve out “ghosting” defect claims from the JCCP. Indeed, FM’s counsel also never at any time during the years counsel spent discussing the prospect of coordinating the California personal injury actions so much as mentioned, even casually, that actions involving an alleged “ghosting” defect should be excluded from such a JCCP. B. To exclude cases alleging a “ghosting” defect runs contrary to the JCCP’s central goal of efficiency and judicial economy. The notion that all product defect actions resulting in personal injury filed against FM in California state court are appropriate to be included in the JCCP except those alleging a “ghosting” defect is contrary to the spirit of coordinated proceedings and their mandated goals of efficiency and economy in resolving large numbers of cases asserting common issues of fact and law. Indeed, it would be drastically inefficient and would more than likely result in significant unnecessary costs to litigants and the judiciary to insist that injured persons pursuing a 4 “ghosting” defect, which FM admits was present in at least 20,000 boards, must do so outside of the already established JCCP and without the benefits of its (soon to be created) streamlined discovery procedures. There are several manufacturing, design, and warning defects alleged in the cases coordinated in JCCP 5305, and a “ghosting” defect is simply one the alleged defects that the Petition identified as appropriate for inclusion therein. In light of the above, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Special Master submit an opinion to the Coordination Trial Judge of JCCP 5305 reflecting that it is both proper and appropriate for the master pleadings to encompass allegations (and defenses) specific to a claim for punitive damages claim and an alleged “ghosting” defect. Sincerely, Anya Fuchs, Esq. Co-Liaison, Plaintiffs’ JCCP 5305 Leadership 5 EXHIBIT A IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 28 Defendants. 27 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, TIMOTHY F. PEARCE, ESQ. (SBN 215223) RECEIVED 26 Judicial Council of California STUART B. LEWIS, FSQ. (SBN 321824) 05 V. / ANYA FUCHS, ESQ. (SBN 215105) y OCT 20 mn: 25 PEARCE LEWIS LLP Plaintiff, | Filing Date: 9-26-2022 423 Washington Street, Suite 510 Case No.: 22CV02067 24 "11 vey - JAMES ~ APPLEGATE, ~ Santa Cruz Countyay. Superior - Court ‘Telephone (415) 964-5225 23 Facsimile (415) 830-9879 Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.501, et seq. tim@pearcelewis.com Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 404, et seq. 22 stuart@pearcelewis.com 21 anya@pearcelewis.com FOR COORDINATION PLonewheel@pearcelewis.com AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION 20 Defendants. | MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AARON M. HECKAMAN (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) Tap . AN ANT TT 19 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES ™ 2--*5-"nated® 1-100, Filing Date: 3-11-2022 BALLEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC Case No.: 22CV00518 1360 Post Oak Boulev. Vv. ', Suite 2300 Santa Cruz or Court 18 Houston, TX 77056 10 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Plaintiff, | JCCP No. 5 17 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 11 MYLESnALLINGHAM,1 Judicial Council Coordination Proceedin 16 reowan@bchlaw.com 12 Onewheel@bchlaw.com 15 CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA 13 Attorneys for Petitioner MYLro ALLINGHAM 14 14 13 MYLES ALLINGHAM Attorneys for Petitioner vUDimi1aAL CUUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA 15 12 Onewheel@bchlaw.com CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL reowan(@bchlaw.com 16 rect AT VT TATSST TAR A 11 pany aheckaman@bchlaw.com Judicial Council Coordination Proceedin Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 17 10 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Plaintiff, JCCP No. 5 Houston, TX 77056 18 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2300 Santa Cruz or Court 19 BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN i . PLLC . yee an Case No.: 22CV00518 ROBERT W. COWAN (Pro Hac Vice anticipated)Filing Date: 3-11-2022 20 AARON M. HECKAMAN (Pro Hac Vice anticipated) Detendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 21 PLonewheel@pearcelewis.com AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION anya@pearcelewis.com FOR COORDINATION stuart@pearcelewis.com 22 tim@pearcelewis.com Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 404, et seq. Facsimile (415) 830-9879 Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.501, et seq. 23 Telephone (415) 964-5225 Pangea nami Boye San Francisco, CA 94111 Santa Cruz County Superior Court 24 423 Washington Street, Suite 510 Case No.: 22CV02067 25 PEARCE LEWIS LLP Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-26-2022 ANYA FUCHS, ESQ. (SBN 215105) 26 STUART B. LEWIS, ESQ. (SBN 321824) Judicial Council of California TIMOTHY F. PEARCE, ESQ. (SBN 215223) 27 FULURL MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, RECEIVED Defendants. 28 i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION JOHN ARCHER, Santa Cruz County Superior Court 1 Case No.: 22CV01018 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 5-20-2022 2 v. 3 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 4 Defendants. 5 JASON ARENS, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No.: 22CV00520 6 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 3-11-2022 7 v. 8 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 9 Defendants. BRADFORD ASHBY, Santa Cruz County Superior Court 10 Case No.: 23CV01417 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 6-16-2023 11 v. 12 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 13 Defendants. 14 GARRETT BACKSTROM, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No.: 23CV01644 15 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 7-13-2023 16 v. 17 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 18 Defendants. AUSTIN BAKER, Santa Cruz County Superior Court 19 Case No.: 23CV01706 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 7-19-2023 20 v. 21 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 22 Defendants. 23 RYAN BANKS, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No.: 23CV01707 24 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 7-19-2023 25 v. 26 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 27 Defendants. 28 ii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION MATTHEW BENNER, Santa Cruz County Superior Court 1 Case No.: 23CV01432 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 6-16-2023 2 v. 3 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 4 Defendants. 5 DOUGLAS BILODEAU, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No.: 23CV02263 6 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-21-2023 7 v. 8 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 9 Defendants. CODY BIRCH, Santa Cruz County Superior Court 10 Case No.: 22CV02737 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 12-14-2022 11 v. 12 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 13 Defendants. 14 WESLEY BLAINE, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No.: 23CV02264 15 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-21-2023 16 v. 17 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 18 Defendants. BRIAN BLIETZ, Santa Clara County Superior Court 19 Case No.: 21CV389464 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 12-8-2021 20 v. 21 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 22 Defendants. 23 DREW BLIMKA, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No.: 22CV02519 24 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 11-14-2022 25 v. 26 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 27 Defendants. 28 iii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION JESSE BLODGETT, Santa Cruz County Superior Court 1 Case No.: 22CV02054 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-22-2022 2 v. 3 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 4 Defendants. 5 TYLER BRADSHAW, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No.: 22CV00423 6 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 2-28-2022 7 v. 8 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 9 Defendants. SPENCER BRINGHURST, Santa Cruz County Superior Court 10 Case No.: 21CV03080 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 12-28-2021 11 v. 12 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 13 Defendants. 14 MICHAEL BRISKMAN, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 22STCV31420 15 Plaintiff, Filing Date: 9-26-2022 16 v. 17 FUTURE MOTION, INC., and DOES 1-100, 18 Defendants. ELLEN BROERS and JEREMY RICKMAN, San Diego County Superior Court 19 Case No.: 37-2021-00051589 Plaintiffs, Filing Da