Sciortino

Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc.

Good Law

108 F. Supp. 3d 780·2015 WL 3544522·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73336

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 5, 2015No. C-14-0478 EMC C-14-0713 EMC C-14-1099 EMC C-14-1105 EMC C-14-1192 EMC C-14-1193 EMC C-14-1316 EMC C-14-2023 EMCCalifornia18,060 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is Defendant Pepsico, Inc.’s (“Pepsi’s”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint. Docket No. 82 (“Motion”). The operative complaint is the Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”). Docket No. 68. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Pepsi’s Motion to Dismiss.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Nine putative class actions were filed against Defendant PepsiCo, Inc. (“Pepsi”). The Court appointed counsel for Plaintiffs Hall and Ree as interim lead counsel and consolidated the actions. 1 Docket No. 65. Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the CAC in the consolidated actions, which Plaintiffs Mary Hall, Kent Ibusuki, and Kelly Ree (“Plaintiffs”) have brought on behalf of themselves and a putative class of California consumers who purchased Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, or Pepsi One (the “Pepsi Beverages”) at any time after January 23, 2010 (“Class”).

The CAC concerns Pepsi’s alleged “intentional concealment and/or failure to warn consumers in California that [the Pepsi Beverages] contain a harmful and carcinogenic chemical…

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.