Legal Opinion

Christiansen v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 19, 2024No. 3:23-cv-01095Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KIM CHRISTIANSEN, Case No. 23-cv-01095-AMO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS 10 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 31, 32 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court are Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation’s motion to dismiss and 14 Defendant Target Corporation’s motion to dismiss. The matters are fully briefed and suitable for 15 decision without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-6. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully 16 considered their arguments and the…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. In Re Gilead Sciences Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  5. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hospital Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API