Legal Opinion

In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided September 22, 2026No. 1:23-cv-00818Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: HAIR RELAXER MARKETING MDL No. 3060 SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Master Docket No. 23-cv-0818 Judge Mary M. Rowland MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Jantz’s Statements of Law in Connection with her Denial (Without Prejudice) of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike ([1812]) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. [1838]. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ objection is overruled. I. Background Dr. Enrico…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. James E. Pinkston v. Anthony Madry and Janiene GrisselleCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
  2. Richard Thorn and Pat Curran v. Sundstrand Aerospace CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
  3. Bobkoski v. Board of Education of Cary Consolidated School District 26District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1992
  4. Arce v. Chicago Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API