Stafford v. Rite Aid Corporation

Opinion

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 (JLB)) Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF BRYON STAFFORD’S UNOPPOSED RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AID HDQTRS. CORP., CLARIFICATION OF ORDER Defendants. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF Nos. 287, 290)

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