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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRIGETTE LOWE, Case No. 23-cv-00834-AMO

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS, DENYING AS MOOT

v. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE;

DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR

EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE LEAVE TO RESPOND TO NOTICE OF

COMPANY, SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

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

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

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

COMPANY,

17 Defendant.

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