Kochar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SHIPRA KOCHAR, et al., Case No. 21-cv-02343-JD Plaintiffs, y. ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 43 WALMART, INC., Defendant. Defendant Walmart’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint is denied. Dkt. No. 42 || (complaint); Dkt. No. 43 (motion). Named plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue because they || plausibly alleged the economic injury of paying a premium for baby food advertised as healthy || when it is said to have contained excessive levels of non-naturally occurring heavy metals. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 17, 23, 129-32; see also Davidson vy. Kimberley-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, a || 965-66 (9th Cir. 2018). The same allegations in the consolidated complaint demonstrate that || named plaintiffs have standing to sue for injunctive relief because they alleged that they would be || willing to buy Walmart’s baby food again but would not be able to trust its marketing …