1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SHIPRA KOCHAR, et al., Case No. 21-cv-02343-JD 7 Plaintiffs, y. ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 43 9 WALMART, INC., 10 Defendant. 11 Defendant Walmart’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint is denied. Dkt. No. 42 12 || (complaint); Dkt. No. 43 (motion). Named plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue because they 5 13 || plausibly alleged the economic injury of paying a premium for baby food advertised as healthy 14 || when it is said to have contained excessive levels of non-naturally occurring heavy metals. See, 3 15 e.g., Dkt. No. 42 17, 23, 129-32; see also Davidson vy. Kimberley-Clark Corp.,

, a 16 || 965-66 (9th Cir. 2018). The same allegations in the consolidated complaint demonstrate that 3 17 || named plaintiffs have standing to sue for injunctive relief because they alleged that they would be 18 || willing to buy Walmart’s baby food again but would not be able to trust its marketing 19 representations. Davidson,

; Milan v. Clif Bar & Co.,

, 20 || 1006-07 (N.D. Cal. 2020). The factual allegations in the complaint amply satisfy Rule 8 and 21 || Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is true for the unjust enrichment and 22 || quasi-contract claim, which the Court declines to dismiss at the pleading stage. To the extent this 23 || claim poses an undue conflict with the record after discovery, Walmart may ask to revisit the issue 24 || on summary judgment. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: April 25, 2022 27 28 JAMES ATO. United fates District Judge