`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`DEBBIE KROMMENHOCK, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`POST FOODS, LLC,
`
`Case No. 16-cv-04958-WHO
`
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 258
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part, but with leave to amend to allow plaintiffs to
`
`specifically allege that their remedies at law are inadequate.1 Considering the arguments raised
`
`regarding the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834
`
`(9th Cir. 2020), there is good cause to allow plaintiffs leave to amend on this narrow ground. That
`
`good cause is created by the Sonner decision itself, depending on how broadly it is read and
`
`assuming that it is not amended or withdrawn as a result of the pending petition for en banc
`
`review. There is also no prejudice to defendant in allowing this amendment, seeing as the
`
`equitable restitution claims have been present since the inception of this case and their continued
`
`presence does not materially alter the scope of the litigation on a going-forward basis.
`
`Defendant is not correct that amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs raise a number of
`
`significant arguments demonstrating that their remedies at law would be inadequate with respect
`
`to at least some of the products/statements at issue, considering both the broad scope of the UCL’s
`
`unfair prong and the four-year statute of limitations under the UCL as compared to the three-year
`
`statute of limitations under the CLRA and FAL (and as the warranty claims do not cover all of the
`
`products/statements remaining at issue in this case).
`
`
`1 This matter is appropriate for resolution on the papers. Therefore, the September 30, 2020
`hearing is VACATED.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-04958-WHO Document 264 Filed 09/29/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Defendant’s reliance on cases where plaintiffs missed the statute of limitations is not
`
`persuasive. Dkt. No. 263. This is not a situation where plaintiffs are seeking to assert an equitable
`
`claim because they knowingly or mistakenly failed to file an otherwise adequate action at law
`
`within the applicable statute of limitations. Nor is it a situation, as in Sonner, where a party
`
`dropped a legal claim in order to avoid the rigors of a jury trial.
`
`To be clear, I am not determining that plaintiffs are entitled to equitable restitution.
`
`Instead, I am acting within my discretion to allow plaintiffs leave to amend as they are able to
`
`plausibly allege that their entitlement to damages at law is inadequate to preserve their right to
`
`seek equitable restitution.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 29, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William H. Orrick
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
