Shallow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 LILLIAN SHALLOW, by and through Case No.: 14cv00294 JAH-BLM her Guardian ad Litem, KATHLEEN 11 SHALLOW, individually and on behalf of ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND others similarly situated, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 67] Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, et. al., 16 Defendant. 17 18 INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Defendant Target Corporation’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 67). Defendant seeks dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in its entirety with prejudice for failure to sufficiently plead any claims against Target. Plaintiff opposes the motion. After a thorough review of the pleadings and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion to dismiss. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). …