Sandoval

Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc.

Caution
145 F. Supp. 3d 986·2015 WL 7351512·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157108
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2015CASE NO. 15-cv-0738-H-JLBCalifornia5,904 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Huff, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

On June 25, 2015, Defendant Pharma-Care US, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss and *990 strike portions of Plaintiff John Sandoval’s first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on September 14, 2015. (Doc, No. 13.) Defendant replied on September 21, 2015. (Doc. No. 14.) The Court took the matter under submission on September 23, 2015, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). (Doc. No. 16.) 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 the initial complaint on April 3, 2015.- (Doc. No. 1.) He filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on June 11, 2015. (Doc. No. 9.) This Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2). (Id. ¶ 1.)

Plaintiff seeks to litigate on behalf of all persons in' the United States who bought IntenseX primarily for personal, family, or household use and not for resale since January 1, 2004. (Id. ¶87.) He alleges causes of action for unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices…

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.