Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Hanscom v. Reynolds Consumer Prods. LLC

Hanscom v. Reynolds Consumer Prods. LLC

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

January 21, 2022, Decided; January 21, 2022, Filed

Case No. 21-cv-03434-JSW

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss portions of the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") filed by Defendants Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. and Reynolds Consumer Products LLC (collectively, "Reynolds" or "Defendants"). The Court has considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in the case, and it finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Reynolds' motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

The substantive facts of this case are fully addressed in this Court's Order granting, in part, and denying, in part, Reynolds' motion to dismiss the original complaint by filed by Plaintiff Lisabeth Hanscom ("Plaintiff"). (Dkt. No. 41 [*2]  ("10/1/21 Order").)

In its prior Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's fraud-by-omission theory based on a duty to disclose and dismissed Plaintiff's claims to the extent they were premised on statements on Reynolds' website. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's claims for equitable restitution because Plaintiff failed to allege that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file any amended complaint within twenty-one days. Plaintiff timely filed the FAC on October 22, 2021. (Dkt. No. 42.)

On November 5, 2021, Reynolds filed the instant motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 43.) Reynolds again moves to dismiss (1) Plaintiff's fraud-by-omission claims to the extent they are based on a duty to disclose; (2) Plaintiff's claims to the extent they are based on alleged misrepresentations on Reynolds' website; and (3) Plaintiff's claims for equitable restitution. Reynolds also moves to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.

The Court will address additional facts as necessary in the analysis below.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34057 *; 2022 WL 591466

LISABETH HANSCOM, Plaintiff, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, et al., Defendants.

CORE TERMS

allegations, recycling, bags, motion to dismiss, restitution, injunctive relief, equitable, adequate remedy at law, wipes, legal remedy, labeling, website, duty to disclose, unfair, consumer, damages, common law claim, cause of action, fraud-by-omission, substantiation, flushable, argues, amend

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court, Antitrust & Trade Law, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, State Regulation, Scope, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Elements, Injury in Fact, False Advertising, Remedies, Injunctions, Preliminary Considerations, Standing