Tietsworth

Tietsworth v. Sears

Caution
720 F. Supp. 2d 1123·2010 WL 1268093·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44053
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 31, 20103:09-cr-00288California12,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fogel, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS

Defendants Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) move to dismiss and strike class allegations from the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiffs Renee Tietsworth (“Tietsworth”), Suzanne Rebro (“Rebro”), Sondra Simpson (“Simpson”), John Carey (“Carey”), and John Engelke (“Engelke”), on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated consumers. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss will be granted in part and dismissed in part and the motion to strike will be granted, with leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 22, 2008, Tietsworth filed suit in state court on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleging that Defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment and nondisclosure, breached express and implied warranties, violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Tietsworth and the putative class. On January 22, 2009, Defendants removed the…

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.