Erickson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
District Court, N.D. California
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
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Daniels-Hall v. National Education Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- United States v. Corinthian CollegesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.