Timmins

Timmins v. Unilever United States, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 4, 20252:24-cv-03017California4,121 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 LACEY TIMMINS, No. 2:24-cv-03017-DJC-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff purchased baby petroleum jelly advertised as hypoallergenic. She later learned the jelly contained fragrance, which she alleges is a known allergen. Plaintiff brought state law claims against Defendant for false advertisement, misrepresentation, and violation of warranty. Defendant moves to dismiss all claims, arguing that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient. Principally, Defendant argues that the term hypoallergenic on the front label was sufficiently vague such that Plaintiff should have looked to the back label for additional information. The Court disagrees and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8). BACKGROUND In 2023, Lacey Timmins (“Plaintiff”) purchased Unilever United States Inc.’s (“Defendant”)…

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.