Lowe

Lowe v. Edgewell Personal Care Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 20243:23-cv-00834California4,355 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIGETTE LOWE, Case No. 23-cv-00834-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS, DENYING AS MOOT

9 v. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE;

DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR

10 EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE LEAVE TO RESPOND TO NOTICE OF

COMPANY, SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 38, 55 12

13 SARAHA MACK, et al., Related Case No. 23-cv-00837-AMO 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v.

16 EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 39, 56

COMPANY,

17 Defendant. 18

19 20 These related putative class actions against Edgewell Personal Care Company concern two 21 different tampon product lines: o.b. Organic™ tampons and Playtex Gentle Glide tampons. Lowe 22 Am. Compl. (ECF 34) ¶ 1 n.1; Mack Am. Compl. (ECF 32) ¶ 1. The gravamen of each complaint 23 is that the tampons contain harmful “per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (‘PFAS’),” otherwise 24 known as “forever chemicals,” rendering…

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.