Magpayo
Magpayo v. Walmart Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PEARL MAGPAYO, Case No. 24-cv-01350-WHO
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
WALMART INC., Re: Dkt. No. 44 Defendant.
Plaintiff Pearl Magpayo challenges the advertising and label disclosures on defendant’s Spring Valley Fish Oil Omega-3 dietary supplements (“Products”). Second Amended Complaint (“SAC,” Dkt. No. 43) ¶¶ 11-13. Under the law in this Circuit, in order to plead a structure/function claim as she attempts to do here, she must allege that taking omega 3 fish oil supplements provides no benefit for “heart health” and support that allegation by citing “matched evidence” from identified scientific studies. Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2020). In the SAC, she still fails to meet that burden. Her complaint is DISMISSED, this time with prejudice. BACKGROUND In my October 2024 Order, I explained that plaintiff’s claims regarding…