Angela Madatovian v. Bayer Healthcare LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELA MADATOVIAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-10232-FLA (MAAx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DISCHARGING ORDER TO 14 SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, 15 SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR Defendant. LACK OF EQUITABLE 16 JURISDICTION; 17 (2) APPROVING STIPULATION FOR 18 LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 19 COMPLAINT;

20 (3) DENYING STIPULATION TO 21 STAY ACTION; AND

22 (4) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY UCL 23 CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 24 FOR LACK OF EQUITABLE 25 JURISDICTION

26 [DKTS. 24, 26, 27] 27

28 1 RULING 2 Before the court are: (1) Plaintiff Angela Madatovian (“Plaintiff”) and 3 Defendant Bayer Healthcare, LLC’s (“Defendant”) stipulation for leave for Plaintiff to 4 file a first amended complaint (“Stipulation for Leave to Amend Complaint”), Dkt. 5 26; (2) Plaintiff and Defendant’s stipulation to stay the action (“Stipulation to Stay”), 6 Dkt. 27; and (3) Defendant’s response to the court’s order to show cause why the 7 action should not be remanded for lack of equitable jurisdiction, Dkt. 28. 8 For the reasons set forth below, the court: APPROVES the Stipulation for 9 Leave to Amend Complaint, Dkt. 26; DENIES the Stipulation to Stay, Dkt. 27; 10 DISCHARGES its order to show cause, Dkt. 24; and ORDERS Plaintiff to show 11 cause why her claims brought under the California Unfair Competition Law (the 12 “UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., should not be dismissed without 13 prejudice for lack of equitable jurisdiction. 14 BACKGROUND 15 On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed this putative class action in the Los Angeles 16 County Superior Court, alleging two causes of action for violations of the UCL. Dkt. 17 1, Ex. 1. On November 26, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this court. On 18 March 11, 2025, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the action should not 19 be remanded for lack of equitable jurisdiction (“OSC”). Dkt. 24. On March 25, 2025, 20 Defendant filed a response to the OSC. Dkt. 28. 21 On March 19, 2025, the parties filed the Stipulation for Leave to Amend 22 Complaint. Dkt. 26. In Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint (“FAC”), she 23 adds a claim for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. 24 Code § 1750, et seq. Dkt. 26-2. 25 On March 24, 2025, the parties filed the Stipulation to Stay. Dkt. 27. The 26 parties seek to stay the action pending resolution of an appeal of a remand order in 27 Ruiz v. Bradford Exchange, Ltd., Case No. 3:23-cv-01800-WQH (KSCx) (S.D. Cal. 28 Aug. 28, 2023) (“Ruiz”). Id. 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Leave to Amend Complaint 3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleading … with 4 the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” The court “should freely 5 grant leave when justice so requires.” Id. 6 Finding good cause therefor, the court APPROVES the Stipulation for Leave to 7 Amend Complaint. Plaintiff shall FILE the proposed FAC within seven (7) days of 8 this Order. Dkt. 26-2. 9 II. Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Remanded for Lack of 10 Equitable Jurisdiction 11 “In order to entertain a request for equitable relief, a district court must have 12 equitable jurisdiction, which can only exist under federal common law if the plaintiff 13 has no adequate legal remedy.” Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1313 14 (9th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). The only claims asserted in the Complaint were 15 brought under the UCL, and remedies available under the UCL are equitable in nature. 16 Hodge v. Superior Ct., 145 Cal. App. 4th 278, 284 (2006) (the UCL “provides only 17 for equitable remedies”). The court set the OSC because it appeared a remedy at law 18 would adequately address Plaintiff’s alleged harm resulting from Defendant’s false 19 advertising that its vitamins were free of artificial flavors. Dkt. 24. 20 The proposed FAC, however, asserts a new claim for violation of the CLRA 21 which provides for recovery of monetary damages. Benson v. S. California Auto 22 Sales, Inc., 239 Cal. App. 4th 1198, 1211 (2015) (“Damages under the CLRA are a 23 legal remedy, intended to compensate those who suffer actual damage.”) (citation 24 omitted). The court, thus, does not need equitable jurisdiction over this claim and has 25 subject-matter jurisdiction over it pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Because 26 the court has jurisdiction over the CLRA claim, remand is inappropriate. See Kim v. 27 Walmart, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-08380-SB (PVCx), 2023 WL 196919, at *3 (C.D. 28 Cal. Jan. 13, 2023) (“Lack of equitable jurisdiction over some claims cannot serve as a 1 basis for remanding a case in its entirety. Otherwise, federal courts would be required 2 to remand every case that includes a UCL claim when a plaintiff has an adequate legal 3 remedy, which is clearly not the law.”) (citing, inter alia, Lee v. American Nat’l Ins. 4 Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting Supreme Court precedent “makes 5 clear that a district court may not under [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c) remand a case in its 6 entirety where there is subject matter jurisdiction over some portion of it”)). 7 The court, thus, DISCHARGES the OSC. Dkt. 24. 8 III. Stipulation to Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal in Ruiz 9 The parties seek a stay pending resolution of an appeal of a remand order for 10 lack of equitable jurisdiction in Ruiz because that appeal is “highly relevant” to the 11 OSC. Dkt. 27 at 4. Because the court has discharged the OSC and is not remanding 12 the action, the court DENIES the Stipulation to Stay as moot. 13 IV. Order to Show Cause Why UCL Claims Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack 14 of Equitable Jurisdiction 15 By alleging a cause of action and seeking monetary damages pursuant to the 16 CLRA based on the same underlying factual allegations as the UCL claims, Plaintiff 17 appears to acknowledge monetary damages will adequately address the alleged harm 18 she suffered. See Dkt. 26-2. The court, thus, appears to not have equitable 19 jurisdiction over the UCL claims. See Dkt. 24; Travonne Hooks v. Dignity Health, 20 Case No. 22-cv-07699-DSF, 2022 WL 17968833, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2022) 21 (dismissing UCL claim for lack of equitable jurisdiction, but denying remand and 22 retaining jurisdiction over the case). 23 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause in writing within 24 fourteen (14) days of this Order why Plaintiff’s UCL claims should not be dismissed 25 without prejudice for lack of equitable jurisdiction in light of the CLRA claim in the 26 proposed FAC. Responses shall be limited to 4,200 words. Plaintiff’s failure to 27 respond may result in dismissal of the UCL claims without further notice. 28 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 3 1. The Stipulation for Leave to Amend is APPROVED. Dkt. 26. Plaintiff 4 shall FILE the proposed FAC within seven (7) days of this Order. 5 2. The Stipulation to Stay is DENIED. Dkt. 27. 6 3. The OSC is DISCHARGED. Dkt. 24. 7 4. The parties are ORDERED to show cause in writing within fourteen (14) 8 days of this Order why Plaintiff's UCL claims should not be dismissed 9 for lack of equitable jurisdiction. Plaintiff's response shall be limited to 10 4,200 words. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 | Dated: March 28, 2025 15 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28