Lyvette Grimes v. Ralphs Grocery Company ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 LYVETTE GRIMES, etc., CV 23-09086 TJH (PDx) 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. Order 15 RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 The Court has considered Plaintiff Lyvette Grimes’s motion to remand [dkt. # 21 10] and Plaintiff Ralphs Grocery Company’s [“Ralphs”] motion to dismiss [dkt. # 12], 22 together with the moving and opposing papers. 23 On August 17, 2023, Grimes filed this putative class action consumer protection 24 case against Ralphs. Grimes alleged that consumers were misled by the labeling of 25 Ralphs’ Private Selection Sliced Smoked Gouda Cheese because it failed to state that 26 it contained smoke flavor. 27 On October 27, 2023, Ralphs removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 28 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 1 On November 27, 2023, Grimes filed her motion to remand, and noticed it for 2 December 4, 2023 – just 8 days after it was filed. Local Rule 6-1 requires motions to 3 be filed no less than 28 days before the noticed hearing or submission date. Further, 4 Grimes failed to conduct a conference of counsel seven days prior to the filing of her 5 motion, as required by Local Rule 7-3. Grimes’s counsel indicated that he attempted 6 to schedule a conference on the same day that he filed the motion, and he offered to 7 withdraw the motion if the parties can reach an agreement. However, neither of those 8 satisfies the pre-filing requirements of Local Rule 7-3. 9 On December 4, 2023, Ralphs filed the instant motion to dismiss, pursuant to 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b). 11 On December 26, 2023, Grimes filed a first amended complaint, thereby mooting 12 Ralphs’ motion to dismiss. 13 In her first amended complaint, Grimes alleged claims for: (1) Violation of 14 California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 15 [“UCL”]; (2) Violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16 § 17500, et seq.; and (3) Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, 17 Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. 18 Because only equitable remedies are available for UCL claims, for the Court to 19 have equitable jurisdiction over Grimes’s UCL claim, here, she must have alleged that 20 all available legal remedies are inadequate. See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 21 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). However, Grimes failed to allege that all available 22 legal remedies are inadequate. Consequently, the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction 23 over her UCL claim. See Sonner. 24 25 Accordingly, 26 27 It is Ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to remand be, and hereby is, Stricken 28 for failure to comply with Local Rules 6-1 and 7-3. 1 At is further Ordered that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, 2 || Denied as moot. 3 4 It is further Ordsered that Plaintiff's claim for violation of California’s Unfair 5 || Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., be hereby is, Dismissey, 6 || without prejudice for lack of equitable jurisdiction. 7 8 || Date: February 5, 2024 wv Callasfc 9 / 10 Terry J. Hatter, Jr. Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order — Page 3 of 3