Stafford v. Rite Aid Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYON STAFFORD, individually and on Lead Case No.: 17-CV-1340 TWR (JLB) behalf of all others similarly situated, (consolidated with No. 18-CV-152 TWR 12 (JLB)) Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 14 BRYON STAFFORD’S UNOPPOSED RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE 15 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AID HDQTRS. CORP., CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 16 Defendants. GRANTING IN PART AND 17 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL 18 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 19 (ECF Nos. 287, 290) 20

21 22 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Bryon Stafford’s Unopposed Ex Parte 23 Application for Clarification of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ 24 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (“Ex Parte App.,” ECF No. 290), in which 25 Plaintiff Stafford requests that the Court clarify that its April 10, 2023 Order Granting in 26 Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (the 27 “Order,” ECF No. 287) dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff Stafford’s second cause of 28 action for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) “only to 1 || the extent the CLRA claim seeks equitable relief such that Plaintiff Stafford would remain 2 || entitled to pursue the CLRA claim for damages.” (See Ex Parte App. at 1.) 3 As noted in the Order, the Court concluded that “Stafford’s claims for equitable 4 ||relief [we]re . . . facially deficient and warrantied] dismissal.” (See Order at 8 (citing 5 || Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020)).) “Because Stafford 6 || fail[ed] plausibly to allege that he lack[ed] an adequate remedy at law, the Court 7 || GRANT[ED] Defendants’ Motion and DISMISSE[D] his claims for equitable relief in 8 entirety.” (See id. at 10 (emphasis in original).) To the extent the Court erroneously 9 || “DISMISSE[D] WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Stafford’s .. . second cause of action 10 || for violation of the CLRA” in its entirety in the Conclusion of the Order, (see id. at 10-11 11 ||}(emphasis in original)), the Court therefore GRANTS the Ex Parte Application and 12 clarifies the Conclusion of its Order as follows: The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 13 || PREJUDICE Plaintiff Stafford’s second cause of action for violation of the CLRA only 14 || to the extent that his CLRA claim seeks equitable relief. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 19, 2023 I [59 14 bre 18 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28