Ary

Ary v. Target Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 23, 20233:22-cv-02625California4,302 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SHEJUANA ARY, Case No. 22-cv-02625-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

v. DISMISS AND STRIKE

TARGET CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 21 Defendant.

12 Before the Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s motion to dismiss and to strike. Dkt. No. 21 (“Mot.”). The Court found this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter was deemed submitted. See Dkt. No. 34; Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. I. BACKGROUND This is a proposed class action on behalf of purchasers of Target’s over the counter “up & up lidocaine pain-relief patches.” Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that statements on the packaging that the patches provide “pain relief” using a “maximum strength” dose of lidocaine for “up to 8 hours” are misleading. Id. ¶ 3. According to Plaintiff, the patches “regularly peel off 22…

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.