Arnold

Arnold v. Hearst Magazine Media, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 20203:19-cv-01969California1,072 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Fenella Arnold and Kelly Nakai filed a Class 26 Action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, 27 against Defendants Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., CDS Global, Inc., and Does 1 through 28 50. (ECF No. 1-2). On October 10, 2019, Defendants removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1). On December 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Fenella Arnold, Kelly Nakai, and Michele Ruppert filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging individual and class claims against Defendants for unjust enrichment and for violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. (“FAL”); California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”); and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 (“CLRA”). (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff Nakai further alleged an individual and class claim for violation of section 1716 of the California Civil Code. On January 22, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 17). On June 25, 2020,…

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.