Huerta v. First Solar, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 GEORGE HUERTA, an individual, on Case No. 18-cv-06761-BLF behalf of himself and all others similarly 8 situated and as a representative plaintiff, we ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY UCL 9 Plaintiff, CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 10 y PURSUANT TO SONNER 11 CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a 12 Defendant.

The parties’ Joint Statement on Remaining Claims (ECF 223) indicates that the parties

15 || agree on the claims remaining for trial, except with respect to Plaintiff's claim under California 16 Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seg. (“UCL Claim”), which Defendant argues should not

= 17 || go forward because it merely seeks unpaid wages that are the subject of other claims.

18 A plaintiff suing under the UCL must establish the lack of adequate remedy at law before 19 || securing equitable restitution for past harm. See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 20 || 844 (9th Cir. 2020). If the UCL Claim merely seeks unpaid wages that are the subject of other 21 claims, the UCL Claim is subject to dismissal. 22 Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and within 14 days, why the UCL 23 || Claim should not be dismissed pursuant to Sonner. Defendant may, but need not, file a reply to 24 || Plaintiff's show cause response within 7 days after the show cause response is filed. Both briefs 25 || are limited to a maximum of 3 pages. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: May 29, 2025 4 / Vt (0h an BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge