Valles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISABELLA VALLES, et al., Case No. 24-cv-06233-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART,

v. DENYING IN PART, MOTION TO

DISMISS

AMAZON.COM LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 35 Defendants.

Amazon’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is granted in part and denied in part. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts of this case. 1. Failure to Warn: The plaintiffs have adequately pled a failure-to-warn claim. Amazon argues that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim because they did not plead the exact source of injury, i.e., specifics about the component that caused the plaintiffs’ skin issues. But Amazon cites no case requiring plaintiffs to plead exactly the nature of the defect that caused their injuries, nor did the Court identify any. Instead, the question is whether the plaintiffs have identified the danger or hazard and whether the defendant failed to warn of that danger or hazard. See Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal. 4th 56, 64 (2008). Applying Rule 8’s pleading standard, the plaintiffs have pled their failure to warn claim with sufficient detail…