From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Hain Celestial Grp.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 17, 2023
22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)

Opinion

22-cv-00527-VC

08-17-2023

TRACY HOWARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

RE: DKT. NO. 82

VINCE CHHABRIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

As more fully discussed at the hearing, the motion for partial reconsideration is denied. This Court's decision in Howard v. Gerber Products Company, 2023 WL 2716583 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2023), suggests that the Court applied the wrong legal standard when evaluating Hain Celestial's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims in their first amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 56. Still, reconsideration wouldn't affect the plaintiffs' ability to pursue these claims and thus would only create delay. The Ninth Circuit's decision in McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023), is not applicable because, taking the allegations in the complaint as true, it is not ambiguous whether these products-marketed either as “toddler” foods or for children ages “9+ months”-are intended for children under age two.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Howard v. Hain Celestial Grp.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 17, 2023
22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)
Case details for

Howard v. Hain Celestial Grp.

Case Details

Full title:TRACY HOWARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 17, 2023

Citations

22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)