Wadeea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 17, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01690
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

□

2 3 4 5 6 7 □ 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} MASHID WADEEA Case No.: 3:23-CV-1690-JO-DDL Plaintity | ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO 13 || V. AMEND IN PART AND 14 || MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, UTES □□□ ete sh 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 i For the reasons stated on the record during oral argument, the Court denies Plaintiff 20 |;motion for leave to amend in part. Because Plaintiff has stipulated that her Unfai 21 Competition Law (“UCL”) claim is based on the same facts and legal theories as he 22 || warranty claims, and because she seeks the same monetary remedies for both, the Cou 23 ||finds that it lacks equitable jurisdiction over her UCL claim. See Sonner v. Premie 24 || Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020). The Court thus denies leave to amend wit 25 regard to her proposed UCL claim. 26 The matter is continued to Wednesday, May 8, 2024, at 9:30 am. The Parties ma 27 || file supplemental briefing regarding whether this Court has equitable jurisdiction ove 28

1 || Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiff may file her briefing by Monday, April 22, 2 and Defendant may respond by Friday, April 26, 2024. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: April 17, 2024 6 7 8 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 12 14 i 16 ly 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28