Parham v. McDonald's Corporation et al

Filing 28

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations of The Unfair Competition Law, The Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by McDonald's Corporation, McDonalds USA, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 6/24/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Maxine M. Chesney. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Thorpe, Jane) (Filed on 4/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

RANDALL L. ALLEN (SBN 264067)
[e-mail]
PALANI P. RATHINASAMY (SBN 269852)
[e-mail]
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150
Menlo Park, CA 94025-4008
Telephone:
650-838-2000
Facsimile:
650-838-2001
JANE FUGATE THORPE (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SCOTT A. ELDER (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone:
404-881-7000
Facsimile:
404-881-7777
Attorneys for Defendants
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION and
MCDONALD’S USA, LLC.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17
18
19

MONET PARHAM, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23

v.
McDONALD’S CORPORATION, and
McDONALD’S USA, LLC.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 11-cv-00511-MMC
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,
THE CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES
ACT AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. 11-cv-00511 MMC

1

Having received and reviewed the April 18, 2011 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

2

Class Action Complaint, filed by defendants McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s USA,

3

LLC, and plaintiff’s opposition and defendants’ reply memorandum, and good cause appearing, IT

4

IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint

5

is GRANTED on the following grounds: Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under

6

California’s Unfair Competition Law. See Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. of Orange Ctny., 246 P.3d

7

877 (Cal. 2011); Hall v. Time, Inc., 158 Cal. App. 4th 847 (2008); Similia v. Am. Sterling Bank,

8

No. 09-CV-781JLS(CAB), 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 108440, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010); (2)

9

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. See

10

Cattie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 939 (S.D. Cal. 2007); and (3) Plaintiff fails to

11

state a claim for relief under California’s False Advertising Law. See Id.; Hinjos v. Kohl’s Corp.,

12

No. CV 10-07590 ODW AGRX, 2010 WL 4916647 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010). Pursuant to Federal

13

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiff has failed to plead “enough facts to state a claim to

14

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). Accordingly,

15

the Amended Class Action Complaint is dismissed in its entirety and with prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED:

19
20
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Case No. 11-cv-00511 MMC