Legal Opinion

In re Clorox Consumer Litigation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided August 24, 2012No. Nos. 12-00280 SC, 12-00764 SC, 12-00356 SC, 12-00649 SC, 12-01051 SCPublishedCited by 32 opinions

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

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Navarro v. BlockCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Kwan v. SanMedica InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  2. James Kroessler v. Cvs Health CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  3. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
  4. Beck v. FCA US LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2017
  5. Clancy v. Bromley Tea Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2013

27 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