Garland v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHELSEA GARLAND, et al., Case No. 24-cv-1168-BAS-SBC

11 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

12 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

13 MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, (ECF No. 8) et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, file a Complaint 17 against Mead Johnson & Co., LLC; Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.; and Reckitt Benckiser 18 LLC (“Defendants”) alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. 19 Code § 1750 (“CLRA”); California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 20 § 17200 (“UCL”); California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, 21 (“FAL”); Common Law Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation; Unjust Enrichment; and 22 California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501. (ECF No. 1 23 (“Compl.”).) 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 The Complaint alleges that Defendants used misleading labels on two products: 26 Enfagrow PREMIUM Toddler …