Legal Opinion
Schechner v. Whirlpool Corp.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided February 14, 2017No. Case No. 2:16-cv-12409PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [11]
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint against Defendant Whirlpool Corporation. The Plaintiffs allege causes of action related to Whirlpool’s “AquaLift” oven self-cleaning technology. Whirlpool moved to dismiss some of the counts for failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
BACKGROUND
Ten people from six states brought suit against Whirlpool: Toby Schechner and Barbara Barnes…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Hensley Manufacturing, Inc. v. Propride, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- Matanky v. Gen. Motors LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019
- McKee v. Gen. Motors LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019
- Baranco v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Blitz v. Monsanto Co.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2018
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.