Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00698/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00698-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARI MILLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PETER THOMAS ROTH, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 19-00698 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Kari Miller seeks leave to move for reconsideration of a January 22 order 

granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment against her. 

The order held Ms. Miller presented sufficient evidence to carry her primary challenge, the 

deceptiveness of defendants’ skincare advertisement that hyaluronic acid can attract and retain 

one thousand times its weight in water, to trial. But the order granted summary judgment to 

defendants because Ms. Miller failed to provide any evidence challenging the veracity of 

defendants’ advertisement that hyaluronic acid absorbs water from the atmosphere (Dkt. No. 

104). 

Ms. Miller admits she provided no such evidence but contends defendants’ motion did 

not challenge the substance of that claim. Defendants argued in their motion that “Miller’s 

false advertising and misrepresentation claims are limited to a single accused statement — that 

hyaluronic acid can attract and retain up to 1,000 times its weight in water; at her deposition 

she disclaimed relying on any other statements targeted in the Complaint.” Then, in the body 

Case 3:19-cv-00698-WHA Document 122 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of their brief, defendants attacked Ms. Miller’s statutory standing to challenge the atmospheric 

absorption ad (Dkt. No. 79 at 7–9) and Ms. Miller responded (Dkt. No. 85 at 13–14). But 

California’s § 17200 deceptiveness claim has two parts: (1) statutory standing; and (2) the 

merits. Upon further consideration, though defendants clearly challenged the former, it 

appears they did not clearly challenge the merits of Ms. Miller’s challenge to the atmospheric 

absorption ad. 

Ms. Miller’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. She may 

file a motion no longer than 5 PAGES by FEBRUARY 26 AT NOON. Defendants may respond in 

no more than 5 PAGES by MARCH 4 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00698-WHA Document 122 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 2