Anderson v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 41
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge
Plaintiff Barbara Anderson (“Plaintiff’) bought one of Defendant The Hain Celes*1230tial Group, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) products because she thought, based on the front label, that it was “all natural.” It apparently was not. She now brings this purported class action asserting violations of California’s consumer protection statutes. See Docket Item No. 41. Defendant moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- O'Hara v. Diageo-Guinness, USA, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- Jennifer Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Slaten v. Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC.District Court, N.D. California · 2023
- Wilson v. Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy CompaniesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019