Quinn

Quinn v. Proctor & Gamble Co.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 20253:24-cv-00856California8,940 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THAYLIA DONNA QUINN, Case No.: 24-CV-856 JLS (SBC) individually,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

Plaintiff, MOTION TO DISMISS v. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO.; WAL-

(ECF No. 14)

MART STORES, INC.; TARGET

CORPORATION; and DOES 1–100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 Presently before the Court are Defendants Procter & Gamble Co. (“P&G”), Walmart Inc., and Target Corporation’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 14) and supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Mem.,” ECF No. 14-1). Plaintiff Thaylia Donna Quinn filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 16), to which Defendants filed a Reply in Support of the Motion (“Reply,” ECF No. 18). Also before the Court is a Notice of Supplemental Authority (“Not.,” ECF No. 19), filed by Defendants. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.