Bishop

Bishop v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Good Law

37 F. Supp. 3d 1058·2014 WL 1620946·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56010

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 21, 2014Case No. 5:12-CV-02621-EJDCalifornia3,452 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Davila, J.

[Re: Docket No. 52]

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Presently before the Court is Defendant 7-Eleven’s (“Defendant” or “7-Eleven”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Scott Bishop’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Bishop”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendant alleging that several of Defendant’s products have been improperly labeled so as to amount to misbranding and deception in violation of several California and federal, laws.

Per Civ. L.R. 7-l(b), the motion was taken under submission without oral argument. Having fully reviewed the parties’ papers, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for the reasons explained below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this case on May 21, 2012. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on September 17, 2012. Dkt. No. 17. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted per this Court’s order on August 5, 2013. Dkt. No. 46. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs claims based on violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnu-son-Moss Warranty Act. Further, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs claims did not meet the Rule 9…

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.