Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 KARI MILLER, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, No. C 19-00698 WHA
12 v.
ORDER GRANTING
13 PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC, et al., RECONSIDERATION AND
DENYING SUMMARY
14 Defendants.
JUDGMENT
15 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 After largely defeating defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this deceptive 19 cosmetics advertising case, plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider an issue resolved in 20 defendants’ favor and now herself moves for summary judgment. The motion to reconsider is 21 GRANTED. But triable issues still remain, so the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 22 STATEMENT 23 A prior order details the facts of this case (Dkt. No. 104). In brief, defendants Peter 24 Thomas Roth, Designs, Global, and Labs LLC (“PTR Labs”) market specialty skincare 25 products and plaintiff Kari Miller contends PTR Labs falsely and deceptively advertised that 26 the hyaluronic acid contained in its Water Drench line could attract and retain up to…