Allen
Allen v. Similasan Corp.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Bashant, J.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (2)DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION [ECFs 103, 109]
On February 10, 2012, Plaintiff Kim Allen sued Defendant Similasan Corporation, claiming Defendant made misrepresentations on the labels of its homeopathic products. On October 11, 2013, Plaintiffs Kim Allen, Lainie Rideout, and Kathleen Hair-ston filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”, ECF 58). Allen was then dismissed with prejudice on December 30, 2013. ECF 69. Six causes of action remain against Defendant: (1) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”, Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1750 et seq.); (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17200 et seq.); (3) violation of the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”, Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17500 et seq.); (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq.). ECF 58.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication. Hairston and…