Ruben Preciado v. Nabors Completion and Production Services Co.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-05743
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 CALABASAS LUXURY CV 22-06622 TJH (PDx) MOTORCARS, INC., 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. Order 15 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al., [18] [21] [JS-6] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 The Court has considered the motion of Defendant General Motors LLC [“GM 20 LLC”] to dismiss and to strike the class allegations [dkt. # 21], the motion of Defendant 21 AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba GM Financial [“AmeriCredit”] to dismiss [dkt. 22 # 18], and AmeriCredit’s joinder in GM LLC’s motion to strike, together with the moving 23 and opposing papers. 24 On December 10, 2021, Calabasas Luxury Motorcars, Inc. [“Calabasas”] filed its 25 first lawsuit against GM LLC and AmeriCredit. Calabasas Luxury Motorcars, Inc. v. 26 Gen. Motors LLC, et al., Case No. CV 22-06622 TJH (PDx). That first lawsuit alleged 27 an antitrust claim under the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 16700, et seq. 28 [“Cartwright Act”], and a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. 1 and Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. [“UCL”]. On August 25, 2022, the Court dismissed that 2 first lawsuit, without prejudice. Calabasas Luxury Motorcars, Inc. v. Gen. Motors LLC, 3 No. CV 21-9566 TJH (PDx), 2022 WL 17348983, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2022). 4 On September 15, 2022, Calabasas filed the instant lawsuit, alleging a single UCL 5 claim. 6 GM LLC and AmeriCredit, now, move to dismiss for failure to state a claim and 7 to strike the class allegations. 8 Only equitable remedies – equitable restitution and injunctive relief – are available 9 for UCL claims. Madrid v. Perot Sys. Corp., 130 Cal. App. 4th 440, 452 (2005). The 10 Court can entertain claims for equitable remedies only if it has equitable jurisdiction. 11 Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1313 (9th Cir. 2022). Equitable 12 jurisdiction exists only when a plaintiff lacks an adequate legal remedy, Guzman, 49 F.4th 13 at 1313, and affirmatively pleads that it lacks an adequate legal remedy, Sonner v. Premier 14 Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). 15 Here, Calabasas seeks injunctive relief. It alleged that it lacked an adequate legal 16 remedy because GM LLC’s and AmeriCredit’s allegedly anticompetitive behavior will 17 continue unless they are enjoined. However, that allegation merely explained why 18 Calabasas wants an injunction. As numerous District Courts have held, when a plaintiff 19 seeks an equitable remedy, it must establish, in its complaint, that no legal remedy, such 20 as money damages, would make it whole. See, e.g., Clark v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 21 528 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1121 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Here, Calabasas made no such allegation. 22 Moreover, in its opposition brief, Calabasas did not even attempt to argue that it lacked 23 an adequate legal remedy, even though both GM LLC and AmeriCredit raised the issue 24 in their moving briefs. 25 Consequently, the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over Calabasas’s UCL claim. 26 27 Accordingly, 28 1 It is Ordered that this case be, and hereby is, Dismissed for lack of equitable 2 || jurisdiction. 3 4 It is further Ordered that the motion to strike the class allegations be, and 5 || hereby is, Denied as moot. 6 7 || April 10, 2023 ae 7 i Gaclacfc 9 fe rp J. Hatter 10 Henior Cited States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order Page 3 of 3