Traxler v. PPG Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that consumer 17 plaintiff and manufacturer defendant were not in privity because plaintiff merely stated the 18 legal conclusion that it is an intended third-party beneficiary with no other specific 19 allegations
• “California [plaintiffs] cannot state a claim for implied warranty of merchantability absent privity of contract.”
• “Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement may be relaxed when certain information is solely within the defendant’s knowledge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).