Legal Opinion

Erickson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided July 28, 2025No. 3:24-cv-07032Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIDGET ERICKSON, et al., Case No. 24-cv-07032-AMO 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 19 Defendant. 11 12 13 Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of a nationwide and California state 14 class, alleging Defendant’s Huggies-brand baby wipes fail to disclose they contain per- and 15 polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). Plaintiffs assert five causes of action: 1) violation of 16 California’s Consumers Legal…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  2. Daniels-Hall v. National Education Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
  3. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  4. United States v. Corinthian CollegesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  5. Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017

15 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