EAST ST. LOUIS - Lawyers seeking certification of a class against appliance maker Blendjet in California claim a “mirror image action” at U.S. district court here could harm their class.
Their lead plaintiff Gregory Rittenhouse moved on July 2 to intervene in a suit Tommy Gould of St. Clair County filed against Blendjet in April.
Rittenhouse’s counsel Zachary Arbitman of Philadelphia claimed it’s especially true that absent class members have a right to intervene.
Arbitman claimed they face a risk of being bound by an unsatisfactory settlement.
He claimed Gould’s allegations were substantively identical to those Rittenhouse set forth and that Gould sought to represent the same national class and the same Illinois subclass.
He also claimed Gould asked for identical relief.
Attorneys David Nelson of Belleville and Stuart Cochran of Dallas represent Gould.
Arbitman and others filed Rittenhouse’s class complaint last September in the Eastern California district where Blendjet makes blenders.
They claimed Blendjet knew but failed to disclose that its Blendjet 2 was dangerous. Its alleged defects led to overheating, melting of wires, and fires.
They claimed blades broke off during use.
They further alleged breach of contract, violations of six state consumer laws including Illinois, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent omission.
According to the intervention motion Blendjet recalled 4.8 million blenders in December.
“As of the date of the recall Blendjet had received roughly 329 reports of blades breaking while in use and an additional 17 reports of overheating or fires resulting in property damage claims of approximately $150,000," Arbitman wrote.
He claimed Rittenhouse and Blendjet were involved in extensive mediation.
In April, Nelson filed Gould’s suit at St. Clair County circuit court.
Gould purchased Blendjet 2 for $49.99 at Target in Fairview Heights.
He claimed Gould saw Blendjet's representations and understood them as warranties.
He claimed Gould found it couldn’t blend solid objects like ice and frozen berries.
Blades allegedly came loose and would not stay tight; Gould feared it was unsafe and quit using it.
Gould tried to return it unsuccessfully and discarded it.
He also claimed Blendjet’s charging cables overheated and melted, and claimed batteries overheated and sometimes caught fire.
He sought to certify a national class and an Illinois class under state consumer law.
Arbitman claimed in the intervention motion that his group approached Gould’s counsel and inquired if they would voluntarily consolidate the two cases.
He claimed they negotiated for several weeks but couldn’t agree to stay Gould’s case or transfer it to Eastern California for consolidation.
He claimed the misrepresentations and deceptive practices which formed the basis of Gould’s complaint occurred in Eastern California.
“That is where Blendjet came up with the marketing strategies for the blenders, discussed responses to customer complaints, and eventually made the decision to issue a recall on the products,” Arbitman wrote.
Chief District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel presides.