Drake
Drake v. Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHARLES DRAKE, Case No. 23-cv-00939-AMO
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
9 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
10 HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS INC., Re: Dkt. No. 20 11 Defendant.
12 13 Defendant Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc.’s motion to dismiss was heard before this 14 Court on August 10, 2023. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered 15 their arguments therein and those made at the hearing, as well as the relevant legal authority, the 16 Court hereby GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part for the following 17 reasons. 18 BACKGROUND 19 The Complaint makes the following allegations, which the Court accepts as true for 20 purposes of the motion to dismiss. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 21 1987). Plaintiff Charles Drake lives in McKinleyville, California. Compl. ¶ 6. In November 22 2022, Drake purchased a GE…