Dei Rossi, et al v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/14/2012 ORDERING that Defendants' 18 motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety, with leave to amend all claims except for the claim for unjust enrichment. Any amended complaint shall be filed by 9/25/2012. Defendants' 17 motion to strike Count VIII is denied as moot. Plaintiffs' 37 and 45 requests for judicial notice are DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Galen D. Bellamy (pro hac vice)
Sean G. Saxon (SBN 230054)
Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Bradley A. Benbrook (SBN 177786)
Benbrook Law Group, PC
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1610
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

KYLE DEI ROSSI and MARK
LINTHICUM, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

16
17
18
19
20

vs.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, PACIFIC
SALES KITCHEN AND BATH
CENTERS, INC. and BEST BUY STORES,
LP,

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-00125-JAM-JFM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT,
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
COUNT VIII AS MOOT

Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, ETC.
CASE NO. 2:12-cv-00125-JAM-JFM

1

Defendants Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”), Pacific Sales Kitchen and Bath

2

Centers, Inc. (“Pacific Sales”), and Best Buy Stores, LP (“Best Buy”) move to dismiss the Class

3

Action Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiffs Kyle Dei Rossi and Mark Linthicum, on

4

behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated consumers. Also pending before

5

the Court are Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice, and Defendants’ motion to strike Count VIII,

6

which is a list of the consumer protection statutes of 49 states and the District of Columbia.
ORDER

7
8

Having reviewed the parties’ briefing and considered the arguments of counsel at the

9

September 5, 2012, hearing, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, Defendants’

10

motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety, with leave to amend all claims except for the

11

claim for unjust enrichment. Any amended complaint shall be filed by September 25,

12

2012. Defendants’ motion to strike Count VIII is denied as moot. Plaintiffs’ requests for

13

judicial notice (Dkt. Nos. 37 and 45) are DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: 9/14/2012

16

/s/ John A. Mendez_____________
John A. Mendez
Judge, United States District Court

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, ETC.
CASE NO. 2:12-cv-00125-JAM-JFM