Christiansen v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 12, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01095
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KIM CHRISTIANSEN, Case No. 23-cv-01095-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, et Re: Dkts. No. 10, 11, 24, 25 al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Target (collectively, “Defendants”) 14 separately move to dismiss the claims asserted by Plaintiff Kim Christiansen. Because the Court 15 concludes that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged her personal injury claims arising under 16 negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, the motions to dismiss are 17 GRANTED with leave to amend the complaint. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Christiansen alleges that she suffered personal injury from using Cottenelle 20 Flushable Wipes, which she purchased from Target on October 8, 2020. ECF No. 1-1 at 8. 21 Christiansen alleges claims of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Id. at 9. 22 Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 23 on March 17, 2023. ECF No. 10. Defendant Target also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to 24 state a claim on March 17, 2023. ECF No. 11.1 25 II. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to include “a short and plain 27 1 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 2 complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 3 To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s “factual allegations [in the 4 complaint] ‘must . . . suggest that the claim has at least a plausible chance of success.’” Levitt v. 5 Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th Cir. 2014). The court “accept[s] factual allegations in the 6 complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 7 party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). 8 “[A]llegations in a complaint . . . may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action 9 [and] must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the 10 opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Levitt, 765 F.3d at 1135 (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652 11 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Court may dismiss a claim “where there is either a lack of a 12 cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal claim.” 13 Hinds Invs., L.P. v. Angioli, 654 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2011). To survive a motion to dismiss, 14 “the non-conclusory ‘factual content’ and reasonable inferences from that content must be 15 plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 16 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Christiansen alleges that she suffered personal injury under theories of strict products 19 liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. ECF No. 1-1 at 5-9. However, Christiansen fails to 20 provide sufficient factual allegations to state a cognizable legal claim. See Angioli, 654 F.3d at 21 850. The entirety of Christiansen’s negligence claim states: “Plaintiff purchased Defendants 22 product, Cottonelle Flushable Wipes, [on October 8, 2020, in Alameda County] which caused 23 personal injuries to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 1-1 at 8. Similarly, Christiansen’s formulaic recitation of 24 the elements in a products liability claim fails to allege underlying facts such that Defendants 25 would be able to defend themselves effectively. Id. at 9; see Levitt, 765 F.3d at 1135. Further, 26 Christiansen does not allege any facts underlying the breach of warranty claim. ECF No. 1-1 at 9. 27 Accepting all of Christiansen’s allegations as true, the complaint is devoid of sufficient factual 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Christiansen has not alleged sufficient facts underlying her claims to overcome the motions 3 to dismiss. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendant Target’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS 4 || Defendant Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5 15(a)(2), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Christiansen leave to amend. If Plaintiff files an amended 6 || complaint, the complaint should allege the underlying facts for each cause of action, including (but 7 not limited to) whether and how Plaintiff used the product, the legal duties Defendants breached, 8 and what injuries resulted. Any amended complaint is due within 21 days of this order. If no 9 || amended complaint is filed by that deadline, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 Dated: June 12, 2023

13 if) - coke

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN Is United States District Judge 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28