- PAGE 1 OF 5 - 

2915689v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Benjamin J. Branson, SBN 023299 

BAUMAN LOEWE WITT & MAXWELL, PLLC. 

8765 E. Bell Road, Suite 210 

Scottsdale, AZ 85260 

Telephone No.: 480-502-4664 

Fax No.: 480-502-4774 

Email: bbranson@blwmlawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND 

PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

as subrogee for William and Linda Easter, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SHENZHEN GLOBALEGROW ECOMMERCE CO., LTD, a foreign 

international entity D/B/A FLOUREON; 

SHANXI BAIYAN TROUSERS CHAIN 

MANAGEMENT CO., LTD, a foreign 

international entity; DOES I-V, inclusive; 

and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I-V, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO: 

COMPLAINT 

Strict Product Liability 

Plaintiff for its Complaint against Defendants allege as follows: 

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1) This Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain this matter pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a). The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the 

sum or value of $75,000.00 and the plaintiffs are citizens of a state different from any 

defendant. 

Case 2:17-cv-04208-SMB Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 1 of 5
- PAGE 2 OF 5 - 

2915689v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2) Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since 

“a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim(s) occurred” in this 

district of Nevada. 

THE PARTIES 

3) At all relevant times herein, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY (“Plaintiff”), was a foreign insurance company duly 

authorized to conduct business in the State of Arizona. 

4) As a component of Plaintiff’s business, Plaintiff issues insurance policies 

providing coverage against loss due to damage caused by certain casualties. 

5) Plaintiff’s insured, William and Linda Easter (“Easter”) are individuals who 

owned a single-family residence (“Residence”) located at 3625 W. South Butte Road, 

Queen Creek, Minden, Nevada, in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona. 

6) Plaintiff issued an insurance policy to Easter which provided coverage for 

damage to the Residence (“Policy”). 

7) Defendant SHENZHEN GLOBALEGROW E-COMMERCE CO., LTD, is 

and at all times relevant, a Chinese entity doing business as FLOUREON (“Floureon”). 

8) Defendant SHANXI BAIYAN TROUSERS CHAIN MANAGEMENT 

CO., LTD, (“Shanxi”) is and all time relevant, a Chinese entity. Under information and 

belief, Floureon is a subsidiary, entity or department of Shanxi. Floureon and Shanxi are 

collectively referred to as Defendants. 

9) Does I-V are persons, partnerships, corporations and/or associations subject 

to suit in a common name whose true identities are unknown and who may be responsible 

in whole or in part, for the events and happenings referred to herein and legally caused 

the damages alleged by Plaintiff in this Complaint. Plaintiff will seek to amend this 

Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of any of the DOE Defendants when 

their identities become known. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

Case 2:17-cv-04208-SMB Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 2 of 5
- PAGE 3 OF 5 - 

2915689v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10) The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, selling and shipping 

rechargeable lithium ion batteries. 

11) Easter purchased Floureon LiPo Batteries for use in a remote controlled 

toys (the “Batteries”) on-line. 

12) On August 27, 2016 after playing with the remote controlled toys, Easter 

connected the Batteries to the charger to recharge. 

13) Shortly after placing the Batteries in the charger, the Batteries caught on 

fire and quickly spread to the surrounding combustibles. 

14) Subsequent investigation revealed that the Batteries were defective and 

were the cause of the fire. 

15) As a result of the fire, Easter filed an insurance claim with Plaintiff 

pursuant to the terms of the Policy. 

16) The Policy provided that, in the event of an insured loss, Plaintiff would be 

subrogated to any rights Easter might have against a third party who is responsible for 

that loss to the extent of any payments made by Plaintiff. In addition to contractual 

subrogation rights, Plaintiff also has equitable subrogation rights. 

17) Plaintiff has indemnified Easter in whole or in part for the same loss for 

which Defendants are liable. Plaintiff has paid Easter’s claim, as contemplated by the 

Policy (not as a volunteer). Easter had existing, assignable causes of action against each 

Defendant, for which Easter could have asserted for his own benefit had he had not been 

compensated for his loss by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has, therefore, suffered damages 

caused by the acts or omissions upon which the liability of Defendants depends, and 

justice requires that the losses be entirely shifted from Plaintiff to Defendants, whose 

equitable position is inferior to that of Plaintiff. 

18) Plaintiff’s damages are in a liquidated sum. 

Case 2:17-cv-04208-SMB Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 3 of 5
- PAGE 4 OF 5 - 

2915689v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19) As a result of providing insurance coverage, Plaintiff incurred money 

damages when it compensated Easter and/or incurred other expenses, all in an amount to 

be proven at trial, but in no event less than $124,678.01. 

COUNT 1 – PRODUCT LIABILITY 

20) Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as 

if fully set forth herein. 

21) Defendants manufactured, designed, distributed, marketed, supplied, sold, 

entrusted, warranted and/or otherwise placed the Batteries into the stream of commerce 

so as to make it reasonable foreseeable that it would be used in the State of Arizona. 

22) Defendants placed the Batteries into the stream of commerce in a defective 

and unreasonably dangerous condition such that the foreseeable risks exceeded the 

benefits associated with the design and/or manufacturing of the Batteries. 

23) The Batteries supplied to Plaintiff’s insured were defective in design and 

unreasonably dangerous when they left the hands of the Defendants, the manufacturers 

and suppliers, and they reached the Plaintiff’s insured, without substantial alteration in 

the condition in which they were sold. 

24) The Batteries were unreasonably dangerous and defective beyond the extent 

contemplated by ordinary consumers with ordinary knowledge regarding these products. 

25) Defendants’ Batteries were defective due to inadequate warnings or 

instructions because Defendants knew or should have known of the risk of injury from 

their Batteries. 

26) The Batteries were a substantial contributing cause of the injuries suffered 

by Plaintiff’s insured. 

27) The Batteries were being used in a foreseeable manner and for its intended 

purpose. 

Case 2:17-cv-04208-SMB Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 4 of 5
- PAGE 5 OF 5 - 

2915689v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28) As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned defects in the 

Batteries, Plaintiff sustained damages alleged in this Complaint, in an amount to be 

proven at trial but in no event less than $124,678.01. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

A. For the amount of damages paid to and/or on behalf of their Insured under 

the Policy in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $124,678.01. 

B. For Plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ fees to the extent permitted by law; 

C. For prejudgment interest as permitted by law; and 

D. For such other relief as this Court deems just and fair. 

BAUMAN LOEWE WITT & MAXWELL, PLLC. 

/s/ Benjamin J. Branson 

Benjamin J. Branson 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:17-cv-04208-SMB Document 1 Filed 11/15/17 Page 5 of 5