Legal Opinion
Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided June 5, 2015No. C-14-0478 EMC C-14-0713 EMC C-14-1099 EMC C-14-1105 EMC C-14-1192 EMC C-14-1193 EMC C-14-1316 EMC C-14-2023 EMCPublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant Pepsico, Inc.’s (“Pepsi’s”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint. Docket No. 82 (“Motion”). The operative complaint is the Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”). Docket No. 68. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Pepsi’s Motion to Dismiss.
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Nine putative class actions were filed against Defendant PepsiCo, Inc. (“Pepsi”). The Court appointed…
2Cases cited94 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Tan v. Grubhub, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
- Nat'l Ass'n of Wheat Growers v. ZeiseDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2018
- Alberto Lopez v. Bellingham Marine Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2025
- Balistreri v. McCormick & Company, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2023
- Balistreri v. McCormick & Company, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2023
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.