1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

BARRI BOLDEN, an individual, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : Civil Action No.: 

v. : 

 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., : 

a Florida Corporation, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, BARRI BOLDEN, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and through her

undersigned counsel, JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC, hereby submits the following Complaint and 

Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC. (hereinafter referred 

to as “Defendant Sunbeam” and “Defendant”), alleges the following upon personal knowledge and 

belief, and investigation of counsel: 

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Defendant Sunbeam Products, Inc. (hereinafter generally referred to as “Defendant 

Sunbeam”) designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes, and sells a wide-range of 

consumer products, including the subject “Crock-Pot Express Crock Multicooker,” which 

specifically includes the Model Number SCCPPC600-V1 (hereinafter referred to as “Pressure 

Cooker(s)”).

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 1 of 10
2 

2. Defendant Sunbeam touts that its Pressure Cookers are designed with “safety in mind,”1

and include supposed “safety measures”2 such as “safety sensors”3 that purport to keep the lid 

from being opened while the unit it is under pressure. 

3. Despite Defendant Sunbeam’s claims of “safety,” it designed, manufactured, marketed, 

imported, distributed, and sold, both directly and through third-party retailers, a product that 

suffers from serious and dangerous defects. Said defects cause significant risk of bodily harm and 

injury to its consumers.

4. Specifically, said defects manifest themselves when, despite Defendant Sunbeam’s claims 

to the contrary, the lid of the Pressure Cooker is removable with built-up pressure, heat, and steam 

still inside the unit. When the lid is removed under such circumstances, the pressure trapped within

the unit causes the scalding hot contents to be projected from the unit and into the surrounding

area, including onto the unsuspecting consumers, their families and other bystanders. The Plaintiff

in this case was able to remove the lid while the Pressure Cooker retained pressure, causing her

serious and substantial bodily injuries and damages. 

5. On November 24, 2020, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (“CPSC”) announced 

a recall of more than 900,000 of Defendant Sunbeam’s SCCPPC600-V1 pressure cookers, which 

includes the subject pressure cooker, after receiving “119 reports of lid detachment, resulting in 

99 burn injuries ranging in severity from first-degree to third-degree burns.”4

1 See Sunbeam Products, Inc. Crock-Pot Express Crock Multicooker Owner’s Manual, pg. 10, 

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2 Id. 3 Id. 4 See the CPSC Recall Notice from November 24, 2020 

(https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2020/crock-pot-6-quart-express-crock-multi-cookers-recalledbysunbeamproducts-due-to-burn#), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 2 of 10
3 

6. Defendant Sunbeam knew or should have known of these defects but nevertheless put 

profit ahead of safety by continuing to sell its Pressure Cookers to consumers, failing to warn said 

consumers of the serious risks posed by the defects, and failing to timely recall the dangerously 

defective Pressure Cookers despite the risk of significant injuries to Plaintiff and consumers like 

her. 

7. Defendant Sunbeam ignored and/or concealed its knowledge of these defects in its Pressure 

Cookers from the Plaintiff in this case, as well as the public in general, in order to continue

generating a profit from the sale of said Pressure Cookers, demonstrating a callous, reckless,

willful, depraved indifference to the health, safety and welfare of Plaintiff and consumers like her.

8. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Sunbeam’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 BARRI BOLDEN

9. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the City of West Haven, County of New Haven, State 

of Connecticut. 

10. In or around December 2018, Plaintiff purchased a new Crock-Pot Electric Pressure 

Cooker, Model Number SCCPPC600-V1, from Kohl’s Department Store. 

11. On or about August 12, 2019, Plaintiff suffered serious and substantial burn injuries as the 

direct and proximate result of the Pressure Cooker’s lid being able to be rotated and opened while 

the Pressure Cooker was still under pressure, during the normal, directed use of the Pressure

Cooker, allowing its scalding hot contents to be forcefully ejected from the Pressure Cooker and

onto Plaintiff. The incident occurred as a result of the failure of the Pressure Cooker’s supposed

“safety measures,” which purport to keep the consumer safe while using the Pressure Cooker. In

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 3 of 10
4 

addition, the incident occurred as the result of Defendant Sunbeam’s failure to redesign the

Pressure Cooker, despite the existence of economical, safer alternative designs.

DEFENDANT SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.

12. Defendant Sunbeam designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes, and sells a 

variety of consumer kitchen products5

 including, inter alia, pressure cookers, toasters, panini 

makers, and mixers.

13. Defendant Sunbeam claims to “[provide] total wellbeing solutions for living a healthy, 

lively and fulfilling life”6 and boasts that it has “provided convenient solutions to make everyday 

life better”7

 for “over 100 years.”8

14. Defendant Sunbeam is a Delaware Corporation with its registered place of business at 1293 

North University Drive, #322, City of Coral Springs, Broward County, Florida 33071 and its 

principal place of business located at 2381 Executive Center Drive, City of Boca Raton, Palm 

Beach County, Florida 33431. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to diversity jurisdiction 

as 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.

16. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is a resident 

and citizen of this district.

17. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant has 

5 See generally, https://www.sunbeam.com/ (last accessed July 26, 2022). 6 See, https://www.newellbrands.com/our-brands/sunbeam (last accessed July 26, 2022). 7 Id. 8 Id. 

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 4 of 10
5 

sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Florida and intentionally availed itself of the markets 

within Florida through the promotion, sale, marketing, and distribution of its products. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18. Defendant Sunbeam is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, warranting,

marketing, importing, distributing, and selling the Pressure Cookers at issue in this litigation.

19. Defendant aggressively warrants, markets, advertises, and sells its Pressure Cookers as “an 

ideal way to create quick, flavorful meals”9 that is “perfect for busy families, those on the run and 

those who need flexible meal times.”10

20. In the Owner’s Manual accompanying each individual unit sold, Defendant Sunbeam 

claims that the Pressure Cooker “has been designed with safety in mind and has various safety 

measures.”11

21. For instance, Defendant Sunbeam claims that its pressure cookers include “safety 

sensors”12 to keep the lid from being opened while the unit is under pressure; that “[p]ressure will 

not build if the Lid is not shut correctly and has not sealed”13; and that “[o]nce the pressure 

increases, the Lid cannot be opened.”14

22. In addition to the “safety measures” listed in the manual, Defendant Sunbeam advertised 

on its Crock-Pot website that consumers could “cook with confidence” because the “airtight 

locking lid remains locked while pressure is inside the unit.”15

9 See Sunbeam Products, Inc. Crock-Pot Express Crock Multicooker Owner’s Manual, pg. 16. 10 Id. 11 Id. at pg. 10. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 See https://www.crock-pot.com/multi-cookers/express-crock/crock-pot-6-quart-express-crockmulti-cooker/SCCPPC600-V1.html (last accessed March 28, 2022). 

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 5 of 10
6 

23. On November 24, 2020, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (“CPSC”) announced 

a recall of more than 900,000 of Defendant Sunbeam’s SCCPPC600-V1 pressure cookers, which 

includes the subject pressure cooker, after receiving “119 reports of lid detachment, resulting in 

99 burn injuries ranging in severity from first-degree to third-degree burns.”16

24. By reason of the forgoing acts or omissions, the above-named Plaintiff purchased the 

Pressure Cooker with the reasonable expectations that it was properly designed and manufactured, 

free from defects of any kind, and that it was safe for its intended, foreseeable use of cooking. 

25. Plaintiff used her Pressure Cooker for its intended purpose of preparing meals for herself 

and/or her family and did so in a manner that was reasonable and foreseeable by Defendant 

Sunbeam. 

26. However, the aforementioned Pressure Cooker was defectively designed and manufactured 

by Defendant Sunbeam in that it failed to properly function as to prevent the lid from being 

removed with normal force while the unit remained pressurized, despite the appearance that all the 

pressure had been released, during the ordinary, foreseeable and proper use of cooking food with 

the product; placing the Plaintiff, her family, and similar consumers in danger while using the 

Pressure Cookers.

27. Defendant Sunbeam’s Pressure Cookers possess defects that make them unreasonably 

dangerous for their intended use by consumers because the lid can be rotated and opened while the 

unit remains pressurized. 

28. Further, Defendant Sunbeam’s representations about “safety” are not just misleading, they 

16 See the CPSC Recall Notice from November 24, 2020 

(https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2020/crock-pot-6-quart-express-crock-multi-cookers-recalledbysunbeamproducts-due-to-burn#), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 6 of 10
7 

are flatly wrong, and put innocent consumers like Plaintiff directly in harm’s way. 

29. Economic, safer alternative designs were available that could have prevented the Pressure 

Cooker’s lid from being rotated and opened while pressurized. 

30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Sunbeam’s intentional concealment of such 

defects, its failure to warn consumers of such defects, its negligent misrepresentations, 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 Pressure Cooker, which resulted in 

significant and painful bodily injuries upon Plaintiff’s simple removal of the lid of the Pressure

Cooker. 

31. Consequently, the Plaintiff in this case seeks damages resulting from the use of Defendant 

Sunbeam’s Pressure Cooker 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

32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though set 

forth fully at length herein. 

33. At the time of Plaintiff’s injuries, Defendant Sunbeam’s Pressure Cookers were defective

and unreasonably dangerous for use by foreseeable consumers, including Plaintiff. 

34. Defendant Sunbeam’s pressure cookers were in the same or substantially similar condition

as when they left the possession of the Defendant. 

35. Plaintiff and her family did not misuse or materially alter the Pressure Cooker.

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 7 of 10
8 

36. The Pressure Cookers did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have 

expected them to perform when used in a reasonably foreseeable way.

37. Further, a reasonable person would conclude that the possibility and risk of serious harm 

outweigh the burden or cost of making the Pressure Cookers safe. Specifically:

a. The Pressure Cookers 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 

outweigh any benefit that could be derived from its normal, intended use;

c. Defendant Sunbeam failed to properly market, design, manufacture, distribute, 

supply, and sell the Pressure Cookers, despite having extensive knowledge that the

aforementioned injuries could and did occur; 

d. Defendant Sunbeam failed to warn and place adequate warnings and instructions 

on the Pressure Cookers; 

e. Defendant Sunbeam failed to adequately test the Pressure Cookers; and 

f. Defendant Sunbeam failed to market an economically feasible alternative design, 

despite the existence of economical, safer alternatives, that could have prevented 

the Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.

38. Defendant Sunbeam’s actions and omissions were the direct and proximate cause of 

Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Sunbeam for damages, 

together with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. Plaintiff 

reserves the right to amend this Complaint to include a claim for punitive damages according to 

proof. 

COUNT II

NEGLIGENCE

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though set 

forth fully at length herein. 

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

40. Defendant Sunbeam had a duty of reasonable care to design, manufacture, market, and sell

non-defective Pressure Cookers that are reasonably safe for their intended uses by consumers, such 

as Plaintiff and her family.

41. Defendant Sunbeam failed to exercise ordinary care in the manufacture, sale, warnings,

quality assurance, quality control, distribution, advertising, promotion, sale, and marketing of its

Pressure Cookers in that Defendant knew or should have known that said Pressure Cookers created 

a high risk of unreasonable harm to the Plaintiff and consumers alike.

42. Defendant Sunbeam was negligent in the design, manufacture, advertising, warning,

marketing, and sale of its Pressure Cookers in that, among other things, it:

a. Failed to use due care in designing and manufacturing the pressure cookers to avoid 

the aforementioned risks to individuals;

b. Placed an unsafe product into the stream of commerce;

c. Aggressively over-promoted and marketed its Pressure Cookers through television, 

social media, and other advertising outlets; and

d. Was otherwise careless or negligent.

43. Despite the fact that Defendant Sunbeam knew or should have known that consumers were

able to remove the lid while the Pressure Cookers were still pressurized, Defendant continued to

market its pressure cookers to the general public (and continues to do so).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Sunbeam for damages, 

together with interest, costs of suit, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. Plaintiff 

reserves the right to amend this Complaint to include a claim for punitive damages according to 

proof.

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 9 of 10
10 

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 punitive damages if applicable, to which she is entitled by law, as well as all costs of 

this action and interest, 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 Pressure Cooker; 

c. pre and post judgment interest at the lawful rate;

d. a trial by jury on all issues of the case; and 

e. 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.

 Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: July 27, 2022 JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC

 /s/ Lisa A. Gorshe, Esq. 

Lisa A. Gorshe, Esq. (FL #122180) 

 Anna R. Rick, Esq. (MN #0401065)

Pro Hac Vice to be filed

444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 

St. Paul, MN 55101 

(612) 436-1800 / (612) 436-1801 (f)

lgorshe@johnsonbecker.com

arick@johnsonbecker.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 9:22-cv-81103-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2022 Page 10 of 10