Winans v. Emeritus Corporation

Filing 70

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion for Clarification.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12
13

ARVILLE WINANS, by and through
his guardian ad litem, RENEE
MOULTON, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly
situated,

14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

16
17
18

EMERITUS CORPORATION and DOES 1
through 100,
Defendants.

19

) Case No. 13-cv-03962-SC
)
) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S
) MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

20
21

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Arville Winans's motion for

22

clarification of the Court's March 5, 2014 order holding, in part,

23

that the Court would abstain from deciding Plaintiff's claims for

24

equitable relief against Defendant Emeritus Corporation

25

("Defendant").

ECF Nos. 58 ("Mot."), 53 ("Mar. 5 Order").

26

Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleged that Defendant has

27

engaged in a scheme to defraud seniors by falsely representing that

28

it will provide sufficient staff to care for all of its residents

1

based on the residents' evaluations, "when in truth [Defendant]

2

determines facility staffing based on labor budgets set to meet

3

profit margins established by corporate headquarters."

4

("FAC") ¶ 2.

ECF No. 24

5

Plaintiff's FAC asserted claims for (1) violation of the

6

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code §

7

1750 et seq.; (2) violation of the California Unfair Competition

8

Law ("UCL"), id. § 17200 et seq.; and (3) California's Elder

9

Financial Abuse Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30.

FAC ¶¶

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

73-114.

11

prohibiting Defendant from "promising elders, dependent adults, and

12

their family members that [Defendant] will provide the care and

13

personal services needed by each resident as assessed in their

14

comprehensive evaluation and from charging its residents based on

15

this false promise."

16

injunction "requiring Defendant to budget for and provide adequate

17

aggregate staffing that is sufficient to meet its residents'

18

assessed needs."

19

from adjudicating Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims to the extent

20

that Plaintiff sought equitable relief in conjunction with those

21

claims.

22

hearing Plaintiff's claims for legal relief.

23

Among other things, Plaintiff prayed for an injunction

Id.

Id. at 30.

Plaintiff also sought an

In its March 5 Order, the Court abstained

March 5 Order at 18.

The Court did not abstain from
Id.

Plaintiff now contends that the Court's March 5 Order was not

24

clear on (1) whether the Court was abstaining from hearing

25

Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief under both the Elder

26

Financial Abuse Act and the CLRA, and apparently (2) whether the

27

Court would hear claims for equitable relief that would require

28

Defendant to disclose certain material facts relevant to its

2

1

staffing decisions.

See Mot. at 4-8; Reply at 1-2.

"A court may clarify its order for any reason."

2

Wahl v. Am.

3

Sec. Ins. Co., No. C 08–0555 RS, 2010 WL 2867130, at *9 (N.D. Cal.

4

July 20, 2010).

5

which trial courts are often asked to supply, for the guidance of

6

the parties."

7

1985).

8

follows that clarification is unnecessary."

9

Morgan Hill, No. 5:10-cv-05640-EJD, 2011 WL 5085497, at *1-2 (N.D.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

This type of request "invite[s] interpretation,

Bordallo v. Reyes, 763 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir.

"[W]here an order or direction of the court is clear, it
Mohammed v. City of

Cal. Oct. 25, 2011).
The Court's March 5, 2014 Order specifically abstained from

11
12

adjudicating Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims to the extent that

13

they sought equitable relief.

14

California's judicial abstention doctrine, articulated in Alvarado

15

v. Selma Convalescent Hospital, 153 Cal. App. 4th 1292 (Cal. Ct.

16

App. 2007), and subsequent cases.

17

applying California law the discretion to abstain from hearing

18

equitable claims where "the lawsuit involves determining complex

19

economic policy, which is best handled by the Legislature or an

20

administrative agency," or (2) "granting injunctive relief would be

21

unnecessarily burdensome for the trial court to monitor and enforce

22

given the availability of more effective means of redress."

23

1298.

24

injunctive relief would have required the Court to determine

25

complex policy reserved to the California Department of Social

26

Services, and that administering Plaintiff's proposed injunctive

27

relief would be unduly burdensome given Plaintiff's claims for

28

legal relief.

The Court's decision was based on

The doctrine gives courts

Id. at

The Court found that granting Plaintiff's requested

Mar. 5 Order at 12-17.

3

1

Plaintiff was not entirely clear on whether he sought both

2

legal and equitable remedies through his Elder Financial Abuse Act

3

claim when the Court considered Defendant's motion to dismiss.

4

the extent Plaintiff contends that he affirmatively sought

5

injunctive relief under the Elder Financial Abuse Act, the Court

6

clarifies that it abstains from hearing Plaintiff's claims for

7

injunctive relief under that statute for the same reasons as it

8

does for Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims.

9

Given the legal bases for abstention as the Court explained them,

To

Mar. 5 Order at 11-18.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

holding them inapplicable to a separate statute would be

11

contradictory at least, especially when Plaintiff has long

12

contended that each claim would seek the same injunctions.

13

Finally, the Court does not find that the March 5 Order failed to

14

address CLRA-related misrepresentations in the context of

15

abstention -- that discussion appears on page 16.

16

Plaintiff's motion is accordingly GRANTED in those narrow

17

respects.

To the extent that Plaintiff's motion seeks

18

reconsideration of the Court's March 5 Order, the motion is DENIED.

19

The Court also declines to address Plaintiff's new theories of

20

injunctive relief at this point.

21

complaint to assert new claims, he may notice and file a Rule 15

22

motion, which the Court would then adjudicate under the Ninth

23

Circuit's liberal standard for amendment.

If Plaintiff wishes to amend his

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

9
June __, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4