Heagney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL HEAGNEY, et al., Case No. 23-cv-00687-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

v. GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 33 Defendant.

The motion to dismiss is denied in part and granted in part. The consumers plausibly state false advertising and breach of warranty claims, and it is not obvious from the pleadings that those claims are barred by the statute of limitations. But the consumers lack standing for injunctive relief. This ruling assumes the reader is familiar with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. False advertising. The consumers have done enough to state a false advertising claim. As the complaint tells it, Paul Mitchell has long marketed its business and its products as “cruelty- free.” See Dkt. No. 28 ¶¶ 48–73. The plaintiffs say they took Paul Mitchell at its word and bought some of those products. But Paul Mitchell, they allege, once imported those products into China and registered them with the Chinese government—at a time when Chinese law required that companies test…