Christiansen v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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., Defendants.

13 Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Target (collectively, “Defendants”) separately move to dismiss the claims asserted by Plaintiff Kim Christiansen. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged her personal injury claims arising under negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED with leave to amend the complaint.

18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Christiansen alleges that she suffered personal injury from using Cottenelle 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 on March 17, 2023. ECF No. 10. Defendant Target also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on March 17, 2023. ECF No. 11.1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 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 complaint] ‘must . . . suggest that the claim has at least a plausible chance of success.’” Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th Cir. 2014). The court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 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 [and] must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the 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 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, “the non-conclusory ‘factual content’ and reasonable inferences from that content must be 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 liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. ECF No. 1-1 at 5-9. However, Christiansen fails to 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 product, Cottonelle Flushable Wipes, [on October 8, 2020, in Alameda County] which caused personal injuries to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 1-1 at 8. Similarly, Christiansen’s formulaic recitation of the elements in a products liability claim fails to allege underlying facts such that Defendants would be able to defend themselves effectively. Id. at 9; see Levitt, 765 F.3d at 1135. Further, 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 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Christiansen has not alleged sufficient facts underlying her claims to overcome the motions to dismiss. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendant Target’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS || Defendant Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Christiansen leave to amend. If Plaintiff files an amended || complaint, the complaint should allege the underlying facts for each cause of action, including (but not limited to) whether and how Plaintiff used the product, the legal duties Defendants breached, and what injuries resulted. Any amended complaint is due within 21 days of this order. If no || amended complaint is filed by that deadline, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 Dated: June 12, 2023 13 if) - coke ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN Is United States District Judge

Z 18