Hellman et al v. Polaris Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/28/2022 DENYING 38 Motion for Reconsideration. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HELLMAN, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:21-cv-00949-JAMDMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 18 Plaintiffs Michael Hellman, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) seek 19 reconsideration of this Court’s Order (ECF No. 36 “MTD Order”), 20 dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims for equitable 21 restitution under the CLRA, FAL and UCL. (ECF No. 38-1.) 22 Plaintiffs contend that the dismissal should have been without 23 prejudice, because the Court’s ruling was that it lacked 24 jurisdiction and was not a ruling on the merits. 25 1.) 26 oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 46). 27 Defendants argue that this Court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ 28 equitable restitution claims with prejudice because Plaintiffs (ECF No. 38-1 at Defendants Polaris Industries, Inc., et al. (“Defendants”) 1 1 failed to show they lacked an adequate legal remedy as required 2 under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 840 (9th 3 Cir. 2020) and other precedent (ECF No. 46 at 1). 4 The Court agrees with Defendants. The MTD Order on the 5 equitable restitution claims was a ruling on the merits. 6 Plaintiffs’ failure to address Defendants’ arguments concerning 7 these claims in their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss 8 was found to be a concession of Defendants’ arguments with respect 9 to these claims. The MTD Order does not state that the Court 10 believed it lacked jurisdiction over these claims, and Plaintiffs’ 11 interpretation of the Court’s ruling is incorrect and without 12 support. 13 judgment against Plaintiffs on these equitable claims because they 14 failed to satisfy the equitable relief requirements and this 15 judgment was on the merits and with prejudice. (ECF No. 46 at 5-6.) 16 The Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ equitable 17 restitution claims with prejudice and much less commit the “clear 18 error” that Plaintiffs must demonstrate to prevail on their motion 19 herein. As Defendants correctly argue, this Court granted 20 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: July 28, 2022 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?