In Re Mattel, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 70 and 71)
Before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint (“SAC”). 1 For the reasons given below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are consumers who bring a multi-district class action complaint against Defendants, who are manufacturers and retailers of children’s toys. Plaintiffs allege that the Manufacturer Defendants 2 produced and the Retailer Defendants…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- In re Clorox Consumer LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2012
- Johansson v. Central Garden & Pet Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2011
- Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Vernon v. Qwest Communications International, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2009
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.