Riva

Riva v. Pepsico, Inc.

Good Law
82 F. Supp. 3d 1045·2015 WL 993350·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26494
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 2015No. C-14-2020 EMC; Lead Member Case C-14-0478 EMCCalifornia8,999 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 52)

Pending before the Court is Defendant Pepsico, Inc.’s (“Pepsi’s”) Motion to Dis *1049 miss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Riva and Ardagna (collectively “Riva Plaintiffs”). Docket No. 52 (“Motion”). The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint. Docket No. 51.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Nine putative class actions were filed against Pepsi. In general, each action originally alleged that certain Pepsi products contain a carcinogen, 4-methylimida-zole (“4-MeI”), at levels that were unhealthy, because, among other things, they exceeded the levels which triggered warning labels under California Proposition 65.

Following a contested application, the Court appointed the attorneys for Plaintiffs Hall and Ree as interim lead counsel for consolidated class actions. Sciortino ECF, Docket No. 65. Interim lead counsel subsequently elected not to allege any personal injury or medical mo'nitoring claims in their consolidated amended complaint. The Court severed the Riva case from the consolidated actions to allow Plaintiffs Riva and Ardagna an opportunity to plead a personal injury claim seeking medical…

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.