Plaintiff’s Opposition ‘Fails to Salvage’ His Fraud Case vs. Energizer, Says Reply

Plaintiff Josh Mentzer has already amended his pleading once in response to defendant Energizer’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, but he waited until his Aug. 8 opposition to Energizer’s motion to dismiss to tell the court he intends to again amend his pleading (see 2308090034), said Energizer’s reply Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-02028) in U.S. District Court for Central Illinois in Urbana in support of dismissal. Mentzer alleges Energizer overstates the advertised charging capacity of its power banks by 40% compared with the actual experiences of real consumers. Mentzer indicated in his opposition his second amended complaint will abandon his consumer fraud multistate class, including the second of his two proposed classes, said Energizer’s reply. He also intends to abandon claims for alleged breaches of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, his claim for alleged negligent misrepresentation and his prayer for injunctive relief, it said. That would narrow his action to a single putative class of people in Illinois who bought the product, alleging four remaining causes of action, it said. Mentzer’s opposition “fails to salvage” his case, said Energizer.