Case Activity (16839)

1. Order | Filed: September 11, 2026 | Entered: September 11, 2026 Iburg v. Dolgencorp LLC et al

   Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | Arkansas Eastern

   Order ~Util - Terminate Motions 1 - Terminate Hearings

   (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER: The 21 Motion for Leave to File Supplement is granted, but only because it essentially makes no difference here. The 12 Motion to Dismiss is denied. The Court believes that the recall arguments made by Colgate are red herrings at this stage. Put another way, even without any of the recall related allegations, the Court concludes that the facts alleged in the Complaint--which must be taken as true at this point--make the Plaintiff's claims plausible under the Twombly/Iqbal standard. Although not entirely, a large part of the 12(b)(6) question comes down to whether the following two allegations in the Complaint are sufficient fact allegations that must be taken as true, or instead, conclusory allegations that can be ignored: (1) "Unbeknownst to Ginger, the Product was contaminated with bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens and/or had a defect that made the product susceptible to bacterial growth, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens;" and (2) "When Ginger used the product to clean her home, the bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas fluorescens, entered Ginger's body through her respiratory system, a break in her skin, and/or her eyes." The Court certainly understands Colgate's position that such allegations fall on the conclusory side of the line, but the Court does not agree. Plaintiff has alleged that the bottle she purchased had harmful bacterial growth in it. Plaintiff has also alleged that the bacteria from the bottle infected her and made her sick. These are sufficient allegations of historical fact to make her legal claim against Colgate plausible. Where else would the bacteria have come from in a closed bottle? The Court recognizes that it set this motion for oral argument. But, in preparing for that argument, the Court has now concluded that the right answer is so clear that oral argument would be a waste of the parties' time and resources. Therefore, the Court removes argument from the calendar. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 9/11/2026. (hml)

2. Notice | Filed: September 11, 2026 | Entered: September 11, 2026 Stange v. Block Drug Company Inc et al

   P.I. : Asbestos | Illinois Southern

   Notice Striking Electronically Filed Documents

   NOTICE STRIKING ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS striking 69 Motion for Hearing filed by Colgate-Palmolive Company. Stricken at filers request. Document will be refiled using the correct event. (jle)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.

3. 16837 additional result(s)