Legal Opinion

In re Clorox Consumer Litigation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided July 28, 2014No. Master File No. 12-00280 SCPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*439 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Samuel Conti, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendant The Clorox Company (“Clorox”) in connection with its marketing and advertising of Fresh Step cat litter. Plaintiffs now move to certify five plaintiff sub-classes, each distinguished by the state in which the plaintiff purchased his or her cat litter. ECF No. 89 (“Mot.”) (filed under seal) at 7-14. The motion is fully briefed.1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-l(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. Comcast Corp. v. BehrendSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  4. Staton v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  5. In Re Tobacco II CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Robert Brown v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2016
  2. Randolph v. J.M. Smucker Co.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2014
  3. In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2015
  4. Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
  5. Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015

4 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