Peacock v. Pabst Brewing Co., LLC

Peacock v. Pabst Brewing Co., LLC

Opinion

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on two motions: (1) Plaintiff Brendan Peacock's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 38); and (2) Defendant Pabst Brewing Company, LLC's ("Defendant") Motion to Strike Nationwide Class Allegations (ECF No. 43). Both parties filed oppositions. (ECF Nos. 41, 44.) Only Defendant replied. (ECF No. 45.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion and DENIES Defendant's motion.

I. Factual And Procedural Background

This case arises out of a dispute over Defendant's marketing of its "Olympia" brand beer. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant deceives consumers by marketing Olympia Beer in a way that "falsely suggests to consumers that the water in the beer is from [*2]  the Olympia area of Washington State." (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff filed a putative class action on March 15, 2018, claiming he was injured when induced by Defendant's misleading marketing to pay a "premium" price for the beer in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200. (Id. at 9, 11.) Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 19, 2019. (Id.) Defendant answered on October 21, 2020. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff filed his instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(f) on November 12, 2020. (ECF No. 38.) On January 29, 2021, Defendant filed its instant motion pursuant to Rules 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D). (ECF No. 43.) Also pending before the Court is a Motion for Class Certification. (ECF No. 52.)

II. Standard of Law

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