Vapor Beast contended that the claims were untimely, while Huntington countered that the company was included among the unnamed (‘Doe’) defendants in earlier filings. He claims to have identified them as soon as feasible.
Judicial Insights on the Vapor Beast Exploding Battery Suit
Judge Dimke, in her order, clarified that the question of whether the claims were tolled (delayed) due to Huntington’s inability to identify the correct party sooner remains unresolved due to a lack of evidence. She highlighted the complexity of the e-cigarette battery market and noted that Smoke City, another defendant, also struggled with identifying the battery’s supplier.
The judge’s refusal to accept Vapor Beast’s argument without more concrete evidence points to a cautious approach, emphasizing the need for thorough examination before making a judicial determination.
Implications for Vapor Beast
This decision means Vapor Beast must continue to defend itself in this ongoing lawsuit, which highlights the broader implications for suppliers and manufacturers within the volatile e-cigarette industry. The case also underscores the challenges in product identification and legal accountability in an industry where components might be sourced from multiple international and domestic vendors.
