Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646
`BENJAMIN O. AIGBOBOH, Cal. Bar No. 268531
`ALYSSA M. SHAUER, Cal. Bar No. 318359
`1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
`Los Angeles, California 90067-6055
`Telephone:
`310.228.3700
`Facsimile:
`310.228.3701
`Email
`ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
`baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
`ashauer@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
`ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK,
` Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`individually and on behalf all others similarly
`
`situated,
`Assigned to the Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`
`DEFENDANT LENOVO (UNITED
`STATES) INC.’S:
`
`
`v.
`(1) NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS; AND
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a
`
`Delaware corporation,
`(2) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`Defendant.
`THEREOF
`
`
`[Proposed Order submitted concurrently
`herewith]
`
`Hearing:
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`
`Complaint Filed:
`Trial Date:
`
`January 14, 2022
`9:00 a.m.
`5
`August 31, 2021
`None Set
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 14, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 3 on the 17th floor of the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California, Oakland Division, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California
`94612, the Honorable Jeffrey S. White presiding, Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”)
`will and hereby does move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for an
`order dismissing the equitable claims and demands in the Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”)
`filed by Plaintiffs Andrew Axelrod and Eliot Burk (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
`Lenovo’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) is made on the ground that the Complaint’s
`equitable claims for violation of California’s False Advertising Law, violation of California’s
`Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and unjust
`enrichment – and prayer for the equitable remedies of restitution and injunctive relief – are subject
`to dismissal because the Complaint does not plausibly allege that Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy
`at law.
`The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, all pleadings, papers and other documentary materials in the Court’s file for
`this action, those matters of which this Court may or must take judicial notice, and such other matters
`as the Court may consider.
`
`
`Dated: November 15, 2021
`
`
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`
`By
`
`/s/ Benjamin O. Aigboboh
`P. CRAIG CARDON
`BENJAMIN O. AIGBOBOH
`ALYSSA M. SHAUER
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...........................1
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Alleged Purchases .....................................................................................1
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint ..................................................................................................2
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................2
`THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE GRANTED ......................................................3
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Equitable Claims Should Be Dismissed Because The Complaint
`Does Not Plausibly Allege Plaintiffs Lack An Adequate Legal Remedy ..................3
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.
`No. 20-cv-06208 DDP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84385 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2021) ................ 3, 4
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`In re Cal. Gasoline Spot Mkt. Antitrust Litig.
`No. 20-cv-03131-JSC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59875 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) ................... 4
`
`Clark v. Am. Honda Motor Co.
`No. CV 20-03147-AB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64520 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2021) ................... 4
`
`Elizabeth M. Byrnes, Inc. v. Fountainhead Commer. Capital, LLC
`No. CV 20-04149 DDP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149146 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021) ................ 3
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart Inc.
`No. 20-cv-04618-JSW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211251 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2021)
`(White, J.) .................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart Inc.
`No. 20-cv-04618-JSW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75079 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) (White,
`J.) ............................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Gibson v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am.
`No. CV 20-00769-CJC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168724 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020) ............. 3, 5
`
`In re Macbook Keyboard Litig.
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190508 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) ....................................................... 5
`
`McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Common Ret. Fund, Inc.
`339 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Navarro v. Block
`250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Rodriguez v. Just Brands USA, Inc.
`No. 2:20-CV-04829-ODW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94413 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2021) ............ 5
`
`Sharma v. Volkswagen AG
`No. 20-cv-02394-JST, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47250 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) ..................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`Shay v. Apple Inc.
`No. 20-cv-1629-GPC (BLM), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84415 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2021) .......... 4
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 5
`
`TopDevz, LLC v. LinkedIn Corp.
`No. 20-cv-08324-SVK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145186 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021) ................. 4
`
`Watkins v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.
`No. 21-cv-00617-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138888 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2021) .................. 4
`
`Williams v. Apple, Inc.
`No. 19-CV-04700-LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215046 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) ......... 3, 5
`
`Williams v. Tesla, Inc.
`No. 20-cv-08208-HSG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115279 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) ................ 3
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq. ........................................................................................ 2
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a) ................................................................................................................. 3
`
`California’s False Advertising Law ....................................................................................... passim
`
`California’s Unfair Competition Law .................................................................................... passim
`
`Consumers Legal Remedies Act ......................................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Plaintiffs Andrew Axelrod (“Axelrod”) and Eliot Burk (“Burk” and, collectively with
`Axelrod, “Plaintiffs”) each purchased a laptop from Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`(“Lenovo”) because they allegedly believed they were a receiving a discount from the laptop’s
`advertised “regular price.” The Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that the advertised
`“regular price” was not, in fact, the laptop’s “true regular price” and Plaintiffs did not, in fact, receive
`the deal they believed they were receiving. Based on these allegations, the Complaint asserts legal
`claims (e.g., breach of contact) and seeks legal remedies (e.g., damages). Based on the same
`allegations, the Complaint also asserts equitable claims (e.g., violation of California’s Unfair
`Competition Law (“UCL”), violation of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”)) and seeks
`equitable remedies (e.g., restitution, injunctive relief) – without alleging (plausibly or otherwise)
`that the legal remedies Plaintiffs seek are inadequate to remedy their alleged injuries (i.e.,
`overpayment of money). As the Ninth Circuit recently made clear in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition
`Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), however, a plaintiff cannot pursue equitable claims or remedies
`if he has an adequate remedy at law. Under Sonner and its progeny, because the Complaint does
`not allege that Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law, Plaintiffs’ equitable claims and equitable
`remedies must be dismissed. Perhaps more starkly here than in Sonner, a remedy at law could not
`be inadequate since the alleged conduct relates to one thing – price, not the nature of the product.
`Price is inherently subject to a remedy at law.
`RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`Plaintiffs’ Alleged Purchases
`On September 5, 2019, Burk allegedly accessed Lenovo’s website available at the domain
`www.lenovo.com (the “Website”) and purchased a laptop. Dkt. 1 ¶ 87. The Website allegedly
`“offered [the laptop] for sale for $1,189, and represented to Burk that he would save $1,170 off the
`Web Price of $2,359.00” if he used an eCoupon. Id. ¶ 88. Burk, allegedly understanding the
`$2,359.00 “Web Price” to be the laptop’s “regular price” and after obtaining “an additional five
`percent discount,” purchased the laptop for $1,129.55 because he was “[e]nticed by the idea of
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`paying significantly less than [the] regular price….” Id. ¶¶ 89-96. The Complaint alleges, however,
`that, “prior to [Burk’s] purchase, … Lenovo did not sell the [laptop] for $2,539 for a reasonably
`substantial period of time, if at all.” Id. ¶ 98.
`Similarly, on January 1, 2021, Axelrod allegedly accessed the “Website and purchased a
`laptop. Id. ¶ 75. The Website allegedly “offered [the laptop] for sale for $949.99, and represented
`to Axelrod that he would save $1,329.01 off the Web Price of $2,279.00” if he used an eCoupon.
`Id. ¶ 76. Axelrod, allegedly understanding the $2,279.00 “Web Price” to be the laptop’s “regular
`price,” purchased the laptop for $949.00 because he was “[e]nticed by the idea of paying
`significantly less than [the] regular price….” Id. ¶¶ 77-82. The Complaint alleges, however, that,
`“prior to [Axelrod’s] purchase, … Lenovo did not sell the [laptop] for $2,279 for a reasonably
`substantial period of time, if at all.” Id. ¶ 85.
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`B.
`Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on August 31, 2021. Id. In it, Plaintiffs assert the following
`causes of action on behalf of putative national and California classes: (1) breach of contract; (2)
`breach of express warranty; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5)
`unjust enrichment; (6) violation of the FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.); (7) violation
`of the FAL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17501); (8) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
`(“CLRA”); and (9) violation of the UCL. Id. ¶¶ 108-202. The Complaint prays for, inter alia,
`injunctive relief under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL, restitution, actual damages, and punitive
`damages. Id. at Prayer for Relief.
`III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
`A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion should be granted when the complaint
`fails “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`544, 570 (2007). “[L]abels and conclusions” and “naked assertions devoid of further factual
`enhancement” are insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Nor do “[t]hreadbare
`recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, … suffice.”
`Id. Dismissal is proper where “there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of facts alleged to
`support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`A.
`
`THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE GRANTED
`IV.
`Plaintiffs’ Equitable Claims Should Be Dismissed Because The Complaint Does Not
`Plausibly Allege Plaintiffs Lack An Adequate Legal Remedy
`Recent Ninth Circuit law holds that plaintiffs cannot pursue equitable claims unless they (at
`minimum) plausibly allege that they lack an adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., Sonner, 971 F.3d at
`844 (“a complaint seeking equitable relief” that does “not plead ‘the basic requisites of the issuance
`of equitable relief’ including ‘the inadequacy of remedies at law’” fails) (quoting O’Shea v.
`Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502 (1974)); Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 20-cv-06208 DDP (RAOx),
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84385, at *15 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2021) (“District court[] cases following
`Sonner have dismissed equitable claims for failure to allege an inadequate remedy at law”)
`(collecting cases). Courts in the Ninth Circuit – including this Court – have confirmed that this rule
`applies to UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims – which are equitable in nature – and CLRA
`claims seeking equitable relief (e.g., restitution, injunctive relief).1 See, e.g., Sonner, 971 F.3d at
`845 (affirming dismissal of claims for equitable restitution under the UCL and CLRA); Elizabeth
`M. Byrnes, Inc. v. Fountainhead Commer. Capital, LLC, No. CV 20-04149 DDP (RAOx), 2021
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149146, at **8-9 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021) (dismissing UCL and FAL claims);
`Gardiner II, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211251, at *24 (dismissing with prejudice unjust enrichment
`and UCL claims and prayer for equitable relief); Williams v. Tesla, Inc., No. 20-cv-08208-HSG,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115279, at **19-22 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (dismissing claims for
`restitution and injunctive relief under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL); Banks, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`84385, at **15-16 (dismissing “equitable claims under the UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment”);
`
`
`1 The UCL and FAL – which authorize only equitable relief in the form of injunctive relief and/or
`restitution – are “equitable, rather than legal, in nature.” Williams v. Apple, Inc., No. 19-CV-04700-
`LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215046, at *24 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) (quoting Nationwide
`Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty., 9 Cal. 5th 279, 299 (2020)). Similarly,
`unjust enrichment is “an equitable rather than a legal claim.” McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. N.Y. State
`Common Ret. Fund, Inc., 339 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Gardiner v. Walmart Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-04618-JSW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211251, at *19 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2021) (White, J.)
`(“Gardiner II”). The CLRA authorizes both equitable relief – in the form of an injunction and/or
`restitution – and legal remedies. Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a); Gibson v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am.,
`No. CV 20-00769-CJC (GJSx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168724, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020).
`
`-3-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart Inc., No. 20-cv-04618-JSW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75079, at **19-21 (N.D.
`Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) (White, J.).
`Here, the Complaint asserts equitable FAL, UCL, and unjust enrichment claims and seeks
`equitable remedies (restitution and injunctive relief) under the CLRA. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 157-202, Prayer
`for Relief. The Complaint, however, does not allege (explicitly or otherwise) that Plaintiffs lack an
`adequate remedy at law. See, generally, Dkt. 1. On the contrary, the Complaint repeatedly alleges
`Plaintiffs have suffered “damages” and “ascertainable loss[es],” and asserts that Plaintiffs seek to
`recover their “actual damages.” See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 117, 131, 143, 198, Prayer for Relief. Thus, far
`from demonstrating Plaintiffs lack adequate legal remedies, the Complaint concedes they have been
`damaged and seeks legal remedies (damages) to redress that harm. As Sonner and its progeny
`demonstrate, these facts require dismissal of Plaintiffs’ equitable FAL, UCL, and unjust enrichment
`claims and prayer for the equitable remedies of restitution and injunctive relief. See, e.g., TopDevz,
`LLC v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 20-cv-08324-SVK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145186, at **14-15 (N.D.
`Cal. Aug. 3, 2021) (dismissing UCL claim where plaintiffs sought “damages under various causes
`of action” and did not “allege that the damages they seek are inadequate or otherwise distinguish
`their request for restitution from the request for damages”); Watkins v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., No. 21-
`cv-00617-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138888, at **50-51 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2021) (dismissing
`plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief under the UCL and CLRA for failure to allege “facts
`establishing that their remedies at law are inadequate”); Shay v. Apple Inc., No. 20-cv-1629-GPC
`(BLM), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84415, at **5-12 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2021) (dismissing UCL claim
`and equitable relief plaintiff sought in CLRA claim); Banks, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84385, at **15-
`16 (dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ “equitable claims under the UCL, FAL, and unjust
`enrichment and request for equitable relief” because “[p]laintiffs cannot seek equitable relief absent
`plausible allegations that they lack an []adequate legal remedy”); In re Cal. Gasoline Spot Mkt.
`Antitrust Litig., No. 20-cv-03131-JSC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59875, at **27-31 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
`29, 2021) (dismissing UCL claim due to failure to allege that they lack an adequate remedy at law);
`Clark v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. CV 20-03147-AB (MRWx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64520, at
`**26-30 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2021) (dismissing CLRA, UCL, and unjust enrichment claims for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`failure to allege lack of an adequate remedy at law); Sharma v. Volkswagen AG, No. 20-cv-02394-
`JST, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47250, at *29 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) (“[b]ecause they have not shown
`that legal remedies are unavailable or inadequate…, [p]laintiffs’ CLRA, UCL, and unjust
`enrichment claims must be dismissed”); Williams, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215046, at *29
`(dismissing FAL and UCL claims with prejudice “like other courts evaluating FAL and UCL claims
`where plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law”); In re Macbook Keyboard Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 190508, at **12-14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) (dismissing UCL claim in its entirety “and the
`remaining claims … to the extent they seek an injunction, restitution, or other equitable relief” based
`on Sonner); Gibson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168724, at **9-10 (dismissing UCL and CLRA
`restitution claims because Sonner “very recently made clear” that the requirement to establish an
`inadequate remedy at law “applies to claims for equitable relief under both the UCL and CLRA”).
`Dismissal should be with prejudice. The Complaint does not allege (plausibly or otherwise)
`that Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law because it cannot. The alleged injury – overpayment
`due to allegedly false and deceptive reference pricing – is inherently subject to a remedy at law.
`Indeed, Plaintiffs’ legal and equitable claims are based on the same “factual predicates” (Rodriguez
`v. Just Brands USA, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-04829-ODW (PLAx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94413, at *21
`(C.D. Cal. May 18, 2021)) – namely, the alleged use of false or deceptive pricing. Compare Dkt. 1
`¶¶ 108-156 with id. ¶¶ 157-202. That this is true demonstrates that “no amendment could cure”
`Plaintiffs’ failure to “plausibly allege [they] lack[] an adequate remedy at law,” which renders
`dismissal with prejudice proper. See, e.g., Rodriguez, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9441, at *21
`(dismissing claims for restitution with prejudice post-Sonner “[b]ecause [p]laintiffs’ CLRA, UCL,
`and FAL claims are all based on the same factual predicates”) (citations omitted).
`CONCLUSION
`V.
`For the foregoing reasons, Lenovo respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to
`Dismiss, and dismiss Plaintiffs’ equitable FAL, UCL, and unjust enrichment claims and prayer for
`the equitable remedies of restitution and injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 13 Filed 11/15/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 15, 2021
`
`
`SMRH:4847-5343-4110.7
`
`SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`
`By
`
`/s/ Benjamin O. Aigboboh
`P. CRAIG CARDON
`BENJAMIN O. AIGBOBOH
`ALYSSA M. SHAUER
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`
`