Classick v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RICHARD DAVID CLASSICK, JR., No. 2:18-cv-02344-JAM-AC individually and on behalf of 13 all others similarly situated, 14 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 15 v. 16 SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC. d/b/a DIAMOND PET FOODS, and DIAMOND 17 PET FOODS INC., 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Richard David Classick, Jr. (“Mr. Classick” or 21 “Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action against Schell & 22 Kampeter, Inc. d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods and Diamond Pet Foods Inc. 23 (collectively “Diamond” or “Defendants”) for damages sustained 24 from purchasing, or overpaying to purchase, dog food allegedly 25 containing undisclosed levels of heavy metals, BPA, pesticides, 26 plasticizers, acrylamides, and other contaminants. Third Amended 27 Compl. (“TAC”), ECF No. 24. Defendants move to dismiss 28 Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief. Mot., ECF No. 27. 1 For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS 2 Defendants’ motion.1 3 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 A recitation of the primary factual allegations in this case 5 can be found in a prior Order issued by this Court and will not 6 be repeated here. MTD SAC Order, ECF No. 23, at 2-4; Grossman v. 7 Schell & Kampeter, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02344-JAM-AC, 2019 WL 8 1298997, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019) (granting in part and 9 denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second 10 Amended Complaint). In that order, and as relevant to this 11 motion, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for equitable 12 relief, with leave to amend. Id. Accordingly, on April 9, 2019, 13 Mr. Classick, the sole remaining named plaintiff, filed the Third 14 Amended Complaint. TAC, ECF No. 24. Defendants move to dismiss 15 the repleaded claims for equitable relief. Mot., ECF No. 27. 16 Plaintiff opposes the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 29. 17 II. OPINION 18 Mr. Classick has failed to remedy the errors in pleading his 19 claims for equitable relief. “It is a basic doctrine of equity 20 jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act . . . when the 21 moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer 22 irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” Morales v. Trans 23 World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381 (1992) (internal 24 citations and quotations omitted). The TAC contains no 25 allegation that Mr. Classick’s remedies at law are inadequate, 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for July 16, 2019. 1 nor an allegation that he will suffer irreparable harm. 2 A pleading may seek, under alternative theories, both 3 | monetary relief and equitable relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). 4 However, Mr. Classick does not plead his theories of relief, 5 which rely upon the same factual predicates, as alternatives. 6 See Madrigal v. Hint, Inc., No. 17-02095-VAP, 2017 WL 6940534, at 7 *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017) (holding that “legal and equitable 8 claims based on the same factual predicates are not true 9 alternative theories of relief but rather are duplicative.”). 10 Thus, Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief are dismissed. 11 Given this threshold failure to meet the pleading standard, this 12 Court need not address the secondary issue of whether the claim 13 for injunctive relief in particular is properly pleaded. 14 Til. ORDER 15 For the reasons set forth above, this Court GRANTS 16 | Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 27. Leave to amend 17 | having been previously granted, Plaintiff’s claims for equitable 18 relief, which he seeks under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and as a general 19 demand in the prayer for relief, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 2, 2019 22 Me 23 Benlek, sunk 24 25 26 27 28