Legal Opinion
Machlan v. Procter & Gamble Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 7, 2015No. Case No. 14-cv-01982-JDPublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*957AMENDED ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 25
JAMES DONATO, United States District Judge
In this consumer class action, named plaintiff David Machlan alleges that defendants Procter & Gamble Company (“P & G”) and Nehemiah Manufacturing Company (“Nehemiah”) deceptively marketed several lines of personal wipes as “flusha-ble” when in fact they were not. After jointly removing the action, P & G and Nehemiah moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court grants the motions in part and denies them in part.1
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges in his class action complaint that “[defendants…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- City of Perry v. Procter & Gamble Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2016
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.