Legal Opinion
Atkinson v. P & G-Clairol, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Indiana
Decided April 25, 2011No. 2:10 CV 350PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge.
Defendant P & G-Clairol, Inc. (“Clairol”) has moved to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (DE # 7.) Plaintiff, Tonya Atkinson (“Atkinson”), has filed a response (DE # 10), and Clairol has filed a reply. (DE # 11.) In brief, Atkinson has alleged that Clairol’s hair care product, Clairol/Textures & Tones, burned her scalp, causing extensive and permanent injuries. (DE # 1 ¶¶ 1-2.) Atkinson pleaded claims of strict liability *1023(Counts I and IV), breach of express and/or implied…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Thiele v. Faygo Beverage, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- In re Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2016
- Thunanber v. Uponor, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2012
- Hathaway v. Cintas Corporate Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2012
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.