Shook Wins Early Dismissal of Recalled Pressure Cooker Class Action for SharkNinja

Shook secured a complete dismissal for SharkNinja when Judge Eumi Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted SharkNinja’s motion to dismiss a putative class action, alleging economic harm from the purchase of pressure cookers that were the subject of a voluntary Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recall in May 2025. The motion was granted without leave to amend.

Plaintiff Gust Biscovich brought the putative class action asserting that SharkNinja Ninja Foodi OP300 Series pressure cookers were defective — specifically that the lid could be opened during pressurized use. SharkNinja had already initiated a voluntary recall in coordination with the CPSC before the suit was filed, offering replacement lids to all consumers. The plaintiff, who alleged only economic injury and never claimed any defect had manifested in his own cooker, filed suit within days of the recall announcement and without ever participating in the recall.

In its written order, the court dismissed the case on prudential ripeness grounds, holding that the plaintiff’s claims lacked the factual development necessary for judicial review. Applying the two-part ripeness framework, the court found that the plaintiff’s claims were “not fit for judicial decision” because “there are still ‘many unknown facts’ concerning whether plaintiff’s claims would be resolved if and when he avails himself of the CPSC recall.” Second, the court found no cognizable hardship, concluding that the plaintiff’s purely financial injuries did not satisfy the hardship requirement because withholding review would “entail more than possible financial loss.” The court relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Tao v. Arovast Corp.—a parallel case involving an air fryer recall—which affirmed dismissal on identical grounds. Because the jurisdictional defect could not be cured by amendment, the court dismissed without leave to amend.

This victory demonstrates the strategic value of active recall programs and the powerful defensive tool that prudential ripeness presents in defect-based class actions. Courts in the Ninth Circuit—and those applying analogous doctrines in other jurisdictions—may decline to exercise jurisdiction over economic-injury class claims entirely where a manufacturer’s voluntary recall remains available and the plaintiff has not attempted to use it.

Shook Partner Scott Kaiser led the team, Partner Amir Nassihi argued the motion before the court, and Partner Laura Whitmore, Senior Counsels Andy Trask and Doug Maddock, and Associate Stephen Nichols prepared the motion. Partner Tom Sullivan assisted with the briefing strategy.

The case is Biscovich v. SharkNinja Operating, LLC, No. 25-03993 (N.D. Cal, February 26, 2026).