Kanfer

Kanfer v. Pharmacare US, Inc.

Good Law
142 F. Supp. 3d 1091·2015 WL 6742201·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150105
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2015Case No. 15-cv-0120-H-JLBCalifornia6,702 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Huff, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

On July 6, 2015, Defendant Pharmacare US, Inc. filed a motion to¡ dismiss and strike portions of Plaintiff Jonathan Kan-fer’s first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on September 14, 2015. (Doc. No. 33.) Defendant replied on September 21,2015. (Doc. No. 34.) On September 23, 2015, the Court took the matter under submission pursuant to Local' Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). (Doc. No. 35.) On September 24,2015, the Court ' requested briefing on whether Plaintiff, a Florida resident who bought the product that is the subject of this suit in Florida, can assert, claims under California’s consumer protection laws in light of Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.2012). (Doc. No. 36.) Defendant filed its brief on October 12, 2015. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff filed his brief on October 26, 2015. (Doc. No. 40.) Defendant replied on November 2, 2015. (Doe. No. 41.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendant’s motion.

Background

This case is a putative nationwide consumer class action regarding. Defendant’s over-the-counter product IntenseX. Plaintiff filed his initial…

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.