DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 20, 2022
• Docket: 3:18-cv-04978
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DZ RESERVE, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTION FOR 6 v. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

7 META PLATFORMS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 270 Defendant. 8

9 10 Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), formerly known as Facebook, asks for judgment 11 on the Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 332, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). 12 Dkt. No. 270. The parties’ familiarity with the record is presumed, and the motion is granted in 13 part. 14 1. Restitution: Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020), 15 requires plaintiffs to show they lack an adequate remedy at law in order to seek equitable relief, 16 and plaintiffs have not done so for the claim of restitution under the UCL. Plaintiffs say they have 17 alleged a lack of adequate legal remedy, Dkt. No. 274 at 6, but they do not point to any such 18 allegations in the complaint. Plaintiffs’ UCL claims are coextensive with their common law fraud 19 claims, as both seek a remedy for Meta’s alleged misrepresentations of potential reach of 20 advertisements. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Sonner by suggesting that the UCL and common 21 law fraud claims seek different amounts in restitution and damages because the statute of 22 limitations will bar some class members from recovering for common law fraud claims. Id. at 8. 23 Even assuming that were true for present purposes, the fact that some class members’ claims may 24 be barred by the statute of limitations does not mean that the legal remedies available to them are 25 inadequate. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Failure to comply with 26 a remedy at law does not make it inadequate so as to require the district court to exercise its 27 equitable jurisdiction.”). And while plaintiffs aptly note that Sonner does not necessarily preclude 1 does not excuse plaintiffs from showing they lack an adequate legal remedy. Consequently, 2 || Meta’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted for the restitution claims. 3 2. Injunctive Relief: Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief under the UCL warrant a 4 || different conclusion. The requirements of Sonner that plaintiffs show they lack an adequate 5 remedy at law in order to seek equitable relief apply equally to all forms of equitable relief. 6 || Sonner, 971 F.3d at 841-42 (referring to “equitable principles” generally). Plaintiffs say that, 7 although they intend to purchase additional advertisements from Meta they will be unable to trust 8 || Meta’s representations going forward if Meta continues to inflate potential reach estimates. See 9 Dkt. No. 274 at 11; Dkt. No. 332 at J] 101, 108. Unlike restitution, this is not a quantifiable harm 10 || that can be remedied by an award of damages. That is also true for the future availability of 11 remedies for future harms. See Dkt. No. 270 at 10. Plaintiffs’ alleged harm is not that they will 12 || incur additional damages if Meta’s activities continue but that they will be unable to trust Meta’s 5 13 representations going forward. Milan v. Clif Bar& Co., 489 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 14 2020) (citing Davison v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2018)); see also 3 15 Cepelak v. HP Inc., No. 20-cv-2450-VC, 2021 WL 5298022, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021). a 16 || Consequently, Meta’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied for the injunctive relief 3 17 claims. 18 While Rule 12(c) does not expressly mention the possibility of amending a complaint, the 19 option is available. See Gregg v. Hawaii, 870 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir. 2017). At this stage in the 20 || case, after plaintiffs have already amended their complaint three times, plaintiffs’ class 21 certification motion is pending, and dispositive motions are due to be filed in the coming months, 22 || the Court declines to grant leave to file another amended complaint. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: January 20, 2022 25 26 JAMES MONATO United Ptates District Judge 28