Ninja BL685 User manual

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANGELA CAPPELLETTI,
Plaintiff,
- against –
SHARKNINJA OPERATING, LLC
Defendant.
Docket No.: 2:23-cv-02144
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC and MILBERG
COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, upon information and belief, at all
times hereinafter mentioned, alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes and sells consumer
products such as blenders, including the subject “Ninja Blender,” which specifically includes the
BL685 model (referred to hereafter as "Ninja blender(s)”) that is at issue in this case.
2. The Ninja blenders are defectively designed and manufactured in that the unit’s
stacked blade assembly does not lock into place and is not secured to the gear shaft. When used
in its normal and intended manner by consumers, the blade assembly can fall out of the pitcher,
putting the user at risk of sustaining sever lacerations and injuries requiring medical attention. The
Ninja blenders pose a safety risk to consumers and to other individuals who may be in close
proximity to the Ninja blenders while they are in use.
3. Defendant knew or should have known of these defects, but has nevertheless put
profit ahead of safety by continuing to sell its Ninja blenders to consumers and failing to recall the
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

dangerously defective Ninja blenders regardless of the risk of significant injuries to Plaintiff and
consumers like her.
4. Defendant ignored its knowledge of these defects in its Ninja blenders in order to
continue generating a profit from the sale of said Ninja blenders, demonstrating a callous, reckless,
willful, depraved indifference to the health, safety and welfare of Plaintiff and consumers like her.
5. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff in this case
incurred significant and painful bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish,
and diminished enjoyment of life.
PLAINTIFF ANGELA CAPPELLETTI
6. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the city of Central Islip, County of Suffolk,
State of New York.
7. On or about March 26, 2020, Plaintiff suffered serious and substantial lacerations
as the direct and proximate result of the Ninja blender’s blade detaching from blade base during
the normal, intended use of the Ninja blender. The incident occurred as the result of the Ninja
blenders’ defect(s), namely, the Ninja blender’s use of an unsecured blade assembly.
DEFENDANT SHARKNINJA OPERATING, LLC
8. Defendant SharkNinja designs, manufacturers, markets, imports, distributes and
sells a variety of consumer products, including the subject Ninja blender. Defendant SharkNinja
is a Massachusetts Limited Liability Corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware and has a
principal place of business located at 89 A St. # 100, Needham, MA 02494. Defendant SharkNinja
has a registered service address Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE
19801.
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2

9. At the time of the initiation of this lawsuit, the sole member of SharkNinja
Operating, LLC was EP Midco, LLC, a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company created and
organized under the law of the State of Delaware and located at 89 A St. # 100, Needham, MA
02494.
10. Accordingly, Defendant SharkNinja is a resident and citizen of the State of
Massachusetts for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to diversity
jurisdiction prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity between the
parties.
12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all or a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this District.
13. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant
has sufficient minimum contacts with the State of New York and intentionally availed itself of the
markets within New York through the promotion, sale, marketing, and distribution of its products.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14. Ninja blenders, including the Ninja blender that injured the Plaintiff, essentially
have three main components: a base unit which contains a high-speed motor and a gear shaft
(“motor base”); a pitcher, which locks on to the motor base; and a stacked blade assembly with six
sharp blades which is dropped onto the gear shaft (“blade assembly”). and a plastic lid mounted
with metal blades (“blade base”), which screws into the cup and is energized by the base.
15. To assemble the unit, the user first aligns and lowers the pitcher onto the motor
base, then rotates the pitcher clockwise until the pitcher locks in to place. Next the user takes the
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3

blade assembly and places it onto the gear shaft. Once the user has added the desired ingredients,
the lid is placed on top of the pitcher and locked into place.
See Ninja BL685 Owner’s Guide, pg. 5.
16. Unlike the pitcher and the pitcher lid, the blade assembly does not lock into place,
and is not otherwise secured to the gear shaft. Instead, the blade assembly sits “loosely on the drive
gear.”
1
17. As a result, if the user pours the pitcher after removing the lid, or if the lid falls off
the pitcher during pouring, the loose blade assembly can easily fall out of the pitcher and onto
consumers, resulting in physical injuries such as severe lacerations.
18. Defendant SharkNinja became aware of this defect as early as November 12, 2015,
when, in conjunction with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), it recalled roughly
1.1 million of its Ninja BL660 series blenders for this exact defect.
2
1
See Ninja BL685 Owner’s Guide, pg. 8. A copy of the Owner’s Guide is attached hereto as
“Exhibit A.”
2
See the CPSC Recall Notice from November 12, 2015
(https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2016/Laceration-Injuries-Prompt-SharkNinja-to-Recall-Ninja-
BL660-Blenders), a copy of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit B.”
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4

19. According to the CPSC, the firm received 53 reports of lacerations caused by the
stacked blade assembly falling out of the pitcher when consumers poured or inverted the pitcher
after removing the lid with the blade assembly still inside.3
20. Despite its knowledge of this defect, Defendant SharkNinja has continued to sell
and design blenders with loose, unsecured blade assemblies, including blenders like the BL685
blender involved in this case.
21. The Ninja blenders have been designed and manufactured such that consumers
cannot safely use them in the intended manner without risk of physical injury.
22. By reason of the forgoing acts or omissions, the above-named Plaintiff purchased
the Ninja blender with the reasonable expectation that it was properly designed and manufactured,
free from defects of any kind, and that it was safe for its intended, foreseeable use of blending.
23. Plaintiff used her Ninja blender for its intended purpose of preparing meals for
herself and/or family and did so in a manner that was reasonable and foreseeable by Defendant.
24. However, the aforementioned Ninja blender was defectively designed and
manufactured by Defendant in that its loose, unsecured blade assembly is able to fall out of the
pitcher during the normal, intended use of the Ninja blender, putting consumers, such as Plaintiff,
at risk of lacerations and other physical injuries.
25. Defendant’s Ninja blenders possess defects that make them unreasonably
dangerous for their intended use by consumers because the stacked blade assembly does not lock
into place and is not otherwise secured to the gear shaft.
26. Economic, safer alternative designs were available that could have prevented the
Ninja blender’s blade assembly from easily falling out of the pitcher when it is poured or inverted.
3Id.
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5

Examples of such designs include, but are not limited to, securing or affixing the blade assembly
to the gear shaft or designing a blade assembly that locks into place.
27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional concealment of such
defects, its failure to remove a product with such defects from the stream of commerce, and its
negligent design of such products, Plaintiff used an unreasonably dangerous blender, which
resulted in significant and painful bodily injuries.
28. Consequently, the Plaintiff in this case seeks damages resulting from the use of
Defendant’s blender as described above, which has caused the Plaintiff to suffer from serious
bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life,
and other damages.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
STRICT LIABILITY
29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
though set forth fully at length herein.
30. At the time of Plaintiff’s injuries, Defendant’s Ninja blenders were defective and
unreasonably dangerous for use by foreseeable consumers, including Plaintiff.
31. Defendant’s Ninja blenders were in the same or substantially similar condition as
when they left the possession of Defendant.
32. Plaintiff did not misuse or materially alter the Ninja blender.
33. The Ninja blenders did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have
expected them to perform when used in a reasonably foreseeable way.
34. Further, a reasonable person would conclude that the possibility and serious of harm
outweighs the burden or cost of making the Ninja blenders safe. Specifically:
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6

a. The Ninja blenders designed, manufactured, sold, and supplied by Defendant were
defectively designed and placed into the stream of commerce in a defective and
unreasonably dangerous condition for consumers;
b. The seriousness of the potential burn injuries resulting from the product drastically
outweighs any benefit that could be derived from its normal, intended use;
c. Defendant failed to properly market, design, manufacture, distribute, supply, and
sell the Ninja blenders, despite having extensive knowledge that the
aforementioned injuries could and did occur;
d. Defendant failed to warn and place adequate warnings and instructions on the Ninja
blenders;
e. Defendant failed to adequately test the Ninja blenders; and
f. Defendant failed to market an economically feasible alternative design, despite the
existence of the aforementioned economical, safer alternatives, that could have
prevented the Plaintiff’ injuries and damages.
35. Defendant’s actions and omissions were the direct and proximate cause of the
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together
with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENT DESIGN DEFECT
36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
though set forth fully at length herein.
37. Defendant is the manufacturer, seller, distributor, marketer, and supplier of the
subject Ninja blenders, which were negligently designed.
38. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in designing, developing,
manufacturing, inspecting, testing, packaging, selling, distributing, labeling, marketing, and
promoting its Ninja blenders, which were defective and presented an unreasonable risk of harm to
consumers, such as the Plaintiff.
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7

39. As a result, the subject Ninja blenders, including Plaintiff’s Ninja blender, contain
defects in their design which render them unreasonably dangerous to consumers, such as the
Plaintiff, when used as intended or as reasonably foreseeable to Defendant, which causes an
unreasonable increased risk of injury.
40. Plaintiff in this case used her Ninja blender in a reasonably foreseeable manner and
did so as substantially intended by Defendant.
41. The subject Ninja blender was not materially altered or modified after being
manufactured by Defendant and before being used by Plaintiff.
42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’ negligent design of its Ninja
blenders, the Plaintiff in this case suffered injuries and damages described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together
with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
COUNT III
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN
43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
though set forth fully herein.
44. At the time in which the Ninja blender was purchased, up through the time Plaintiff
was injured, Defendant knew or had reason to know that its Ninja blenders were dangerous and
created an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers.
45. Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn consumers of the
dangerous conditions or the facts that made its Ninja blenders likely to be dangerous.
46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to warn of the dangers of its
Ninja blenders, the Plaintiff in this case suffered injuries and damages described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8

with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper.
COUNT IV
NEGLIGENCE
47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as
though set forth fully at length herein.
48. Defendant has a duty of reasonable care to design, manufacture, market, and sell
non-defective Ninja blenders that are reasonably safe for their intended uses by consumers, such
as Plaintiff and her family.
49. Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in the manufacture, sale, warnings,
quality assurance, quality control, distribution, advertising, promotion, sale and marketing of its
Ninja blenders in that Defendant knew or should have known that said Ninja blenders created a
high risk of unreasonable harm to the Plaintiff and consumers alike.
50. Defendant negligent in the design, manufacture, advertising, warning, marketing
and sale of its Ninja blenders in that, among other things, it:
a. Failed to use due care in designing and manufacturing the Ninja blenders to avoid
the aforementioned risks to individuals;
b. Placed an unsafe product into the stream of commerce;
c. Aggressively over-promoted and marketed its Ninja blenders through television,
social media, and other advertising outlets; and
d. Were otherwise careless or negligent.
51. Even though Defendant knew or should have known of the aforementioned defects,
Defendant continued to market (and continue to do so) its Ninja blenders to the general public.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages, together
with interest, costs of suit, and all such deems proper.
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands that all issues of fact of this case be tried to a properly impaneled jury to
the extent permitted under the law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for damages,
including exemplary damages if applicable, to which they entitled by law, as well as all costs of
this action, interest and attorneys’ fees, to the full extent of the law, whether arising under the
common law and/or statutory law, including:
a. judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant;
b. damages to compensate Plaintiff for her injuries, economic losses and pain and
suffering sustained as a result of the use of the Defendant’s Ninja blenders;
c. pre and post judgment interest at the lawful rate;
d. a trial by jury on all issues of the case;
e. an award of attorneys’ fees; and
f. for any other relief as this Court may deem equitable and just, or that may be
available under the law of another forum to the extent the law of another forum is
applied, including but not limited to all reliefs prayed for in this Complaint and in
the foregoing Prayer for Relief.
Case 2:23-cv-02144 Document 1 Filed 03/20/23 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10