Legal Opinion

Randall Sally, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP

District Court, E.D. Missouri

Decided February 19, 2026No. 4:23-cv-01451Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION RANDALL SALLY, ) on behalf of himself and all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) v. ) No. 4:23-cv-01451-CMS ) H&M HENNES & MAURITZ LP, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 39). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  5. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000

25 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