McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ANTONIO MCKINNEY, et al., Case No. 22-cv-00312-CRB

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v.

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Defendant.

Plaintiffs Antonio McKinney and Clint Sundeen allege that Defendant Corsair Gaming, Inc.’s (“Corsair”) packaging of and advertisements for its computer memory products contain deceptive and misleading statements, in violation of the common law and the consumer protection laws of California and 43 other states. See SAC (dkt. 39). In its prior order on Corsair’s first motion to dismiss and motion to strike, the Court granted Corsair’s motion as to (1) claims based on advertisements; (2) omissions claims; (3) equitable claims; (4) negligent misrepresentation claims; and (5) class claims with respect to products Plaintiffs did not purchase. See McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., No. 22-CV-00312-CRB, 2022 WL 2820097, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2022). The Court denied Corsair’s motion…