Joshua Neuman v. Blue Jay Transit Inc. d/b/a Bird; Blue Jay Transit USFM LLC d/b/a Bird; Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime; VeoRide, Inc. d/b/a Veo; and City of New York

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss a putative class action alleging that improperly parked shared e-scooters constituted a public nuisance. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between the defendants and the scooters that caused his injuries, including because he did not identify which company owned them. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Holdings

1. A private plaintiff bringing a public nuisance claim under New York law must allege a public nuisance, negligent or intentional conduct or omissions by the defendant that created, contributed to, or maintained the nuisance, and a special injury different in kind from that suffered by the community at large.
2. The complaint failed to plausibly allege that the City's conduct was a proximate cause of the specific public nuisance because it alleged only that the City established and reported on the program and knew of parking violations, not that the City played a sufficiently direct role in causing the complained-of conduct.
3. The complaint failed to state a public nuisance claim against the e-scooter defendants because the plaintiff did not identify which company owned the two scooters involved in his fall and pleaded no facts connecting those scooters to any defendant.
4. The plaintiff adequately alleged a special injury through his physical injuries from tripping over the scooters, but his alleged risks of more serious injury, pedestrian obstruction, general safety risks, and the scooters' appearance did not independently establish special injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged a public nuisance claim under New York law.
2. Whether the plaintiff adequately alleged that the defendants' conduct proximately caused the alleged public nuisance and his special injury.
3. Whether the plaintiff could pursue the public nuisance claim against all e-scooter defendants without identifying which defendant owned the scooters involved in his injury.
4. Whether the plaintiff adequately alleged a special injury different in kind from that suffered by the public at large.
5. Whether the City of New York played a sufficiently direct role in causing the alleged nuisance.

Disposition

dismissed