In re Clorox Consumer Litigation
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs bring this putative, nationwide class action against Defendant The Clorox Company (“Clorox”) in connection with its marketing and advertising of Fresh Step cat litter. Clorox’s Fresh Step uses carbon to eliminate cat odors, whereas other cat litter products typically use baking soda. Clorox’s marketing campaign allegedly conveys that (1) Fresh Step is more effective at eliminating cat odors than products that do not contain carbon, and (2) cats choose Fresh Step over these other…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Navarro v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Kwan v. SanMedica InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- James Kroessler v. Cvs Health CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Beck v. FCA US LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2017
- Clancy v. Bromley Tea Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2013
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.