Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEBBIE KROMMENHOCK, et al., Case No. 16-cv-04958-WHO 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 9 v. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 10 POST FOODS, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 258 Defendant. 11 12 Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part, but with leave to amend to allow plaintiffs to 13 specifically allege that their remedies at law are inadequate.1 Considering the arguments raised 14 regarding the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 15 (9th Cir. 2020), there is good cause to allow plaintiffs leave to amend on this narrow ground. That 16 good cause is created by the Sonner decision itself, depending on how broadly it is read and 17 assuming that it is not amended or withdrawn as a result of the pending petition for en banc 18 review. There is also no prejudice to defendant in allowing this amendment, seeing as the 19 equitable restitution claims have been present since the inception of this case and their continued 20 presence does not materially alter the scope of the litigation on a going-forward basis. 21 Defendant is not correct that amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs raise a number of 22 significant arguments demonstrating that their remedies at law would be inadequate with respect 23 to at least some of the products/statements at issue, considering both the broad scope of the UCL’s 24 unfair prong and the four-year statute of limitations under the UCL as compared to the three-year 25 statute of limitations under the CLRA and FAL (and as the warranty claims do not cover all of the 26 products/statements remaining at issue in this case). 27 1 Defendant’s reliance on cases where plaintiffs missed the statute of limitations is not 2 || persuasive. Dkt. No. 263. This is not a situation where plaintiffs are seeking to assert an equitable 3 || claim because they knowingly or mistakenly failed to file an otherwise adequate action at law 4 || within the applicable statute of limitations. Nor is it a situation, as in Sonner, where a party 5 dropped a legal claim in order to avoid the rigors of a jury trial. 6 To be clear, I am not determining that plaintiffs are entitled to equitable restitution. 7 || Instead, I am acting within my discretion to allow plaintiffs leave to amend as they are able to 8 || plausibly allege that their entitlement to damages at law is inadequate to preserve their right to 9 seek equitable restitution. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 29, 2020 12 13 ilham H. Orrick 5 14 United States District Judge 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28