Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc

Filing 177

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte granting 167 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs brief due March 13, 2015; Opposition due March 27, 2015; Reply due April 3, 2015. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NANCY LANOVAZ,

Case No. 12-cv-02646-RMW

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

13
14

TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC,

Re: Dkt. No. 167

Defendant.
15
16
17

Plaintiff Nancy Lanovaz, on behalf of herself and a class of Twinings tea purchasers,

18

moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order dismissing her unjust

19

enrichment claim. Dkt. No. 167. The court previously dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as

20

duplicative of Plaintiffs’ consumer protection claims. Dkt. No. 46. Plaintiffs argue that recent

21

California precedent establishes that unjust enrichment is an independent cause of action, and

22

therefore the court’s dismissal is contrary to applicable law. Dkt. No. 167 at 2. For the reasons

23

explained below, the court GRANTS the motion for leave.

24

I. ANALYSIS

25
26
27
28

A. Standard on Motion for Reconsideration
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is
Case No.: 12-CV-2646-RMW
Order on Motion for Leave

1

1

an intervening change in controlling law. There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances

2

warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

3

1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff bases her motion for reconsideration on a material change in law. Civ. L. R. 7-

4
5

9(b)(1); Dkt. No. 167 at 1. Plaintiff argues that (1) the Ninth Circuit has ruled that unjust

6

enrichment is a “standalone cause of action in California” and (2) the remedy of disgorgement,

7

which is not available under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA, is available under an unjust enrichment

8

claim, making unjust enrichment non-duplicative.

9

B. Plaintiffs Are Given Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration Because Plaintiffs
May Be Able to Establish That Nonrestitutionary Disgorgement is an Available
Remedy

10

Plaintiffs wish to reinstate their claim for unjust enrichment, based on the following legal

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

conclusions:

13

1. Unjust enrichment is a standalone cause of action per recent
California and Ninth Circuit law;

14

2. Nonrestitutionary disgorgement is a remedy available under
a claim for unjust enrichment;

15
16

3. Nonrestitutionary disgorgement is not a remedy available
under California’s consumer protection statutes (here, the
UCL, FAL, and CLRA);

17
18

4. An amount of damages other than the price premium paid for
Twinings tea with the offending antioxidant label is
nonrestitutionary disgorgement; and

19
20

5. Because the remedies available under the consumer
protection statutes and the unjust enrichment claim are
different, plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed on their
unjust enrichment claim.

21
22

At this point, the court agrees that California law is clear on the first four conclusions:
23
Plaintiffs are limited to the price premium under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, and nonrestitutionary
24

disgorgement is a possible remedy under a standalone claim for unjust enrichment. 1 However, at

25
this point, the court does not agree that a nonrestitutionary disgorgement remedy could be
26
27
28

1

If Twinings disagrees with these conclusions, they are free to argue as much in their opposition.
Case No.: 12-CV-2646-RMW
Order on Motion for Leave
2

1

available in this case for the three reasons explained below. Instead, the remedy under an unjust

2

enrichment claim would appear to be limited to a price premium, making the unjust enrichment

3

claim duplicative.

4

First, the two cases plaintiffs cite in support of their motion for leave are not applicable to

5

this case. See American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd., 225 Cal. App. 4th 1451, 1458

6

(2014), as modified (May 27, 2014); Meister v. Mensinger, 230 Cal. App. 4th 381 (2014). Both

7

involved a breach of fiduciary duty, and relied heavily on an earlier case also involving a fiduciary

8

breach. Neither case suggests that disgorgement of profits would be an appropriate remedy in a

9

consumer case. In Idanta the Court of Appeal found that “the measure of restitution for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty” is “the net profit attributable to the wrong.” 225 Cal. App. 4th

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

at 1458; id. at 1481 (“We agree with AML that the restitutionary remedies of unjust enrichment

12

and disgorgement are available for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.” (emphasis

13

added)). Idanta relied on County of San Bernardino v. Walsh, 158 Cal. App. 4th 533, 543 (2007),

14

which also involved a breach of fiduciary duty. Walsh noted that “Disgorgement of profits is

15

particularly applicable in cases dealing with breach of a fiduciary duty, and is a logical

16

extension of the principle that public officials and other fiduciaries cannot profit by a breach of

17

their duty. Where a person profits from transactions conducted by him as a fiduciary, the proper

18

measure of damages is full disgorgement of any secret profit made by the fiduciary regardless of

19

whether the principal suffers any damage” (emphasis added). Meister includes essentially the

20

same discussion of the unjust enrichment remedies as Idanta and Walsh, and also emphasizes the

21

special applicability of disgorgement in a fiduciary breach context. Id. at 396-400 (discussing

22

availability of various remedies for breach of fiduciary duty).

23
24
25
26
27
28

Indeed, the Restatement recognizes that
the rule of this section does not impose a potential disgorgement
liability for every business transaction between claimant and
defendant in which the defendant commits a violation of law. To
establish liability under § 44(1), it is not enough to show “conscious
interference with a claimant’s legally protected interests”; the
claimant must show, in addition, that restitution is necessary to
prevent the defendant’s unjust enrichment. The latter requirement is
reinforced by the rules of § 44(3)(b) (restitution may be limited or
Case No.: 12-CV-2646-RMW
Order on Motion for Leave

3

1
2

denied to avoid “inappropriate windfall”) and § 44(3)(d) (restitution
may be limited or denied “if allowance of the claim would conflict
with liabilities or penalties for the interference provided by other
law”).

3

Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 44 (2011). Plaintiffs have not shown

4

that disgorgement of profits is an appropriate remedy in a consumer protection case.

5

Second, allowing plaintiffs to recover disgorgement remedies would appear to conflict

6

with the comprehensive consumer protection scheme laid out in the UCL, FAL, and CLRA. The

7

UCL, FAL, and CLRA already provide plaintiffs a host of remedies, including damages.

8

However, disgorgement of profits is not one of them. It is not clear why plaintiffs should be

9

allowed to bypass the limits placed on damages under those statutes through a generic unjust
enrichment claim based on the exact same underlying facts. See Peterson v. Cellco Partnership,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

164 Cal. App. 4th 1583, 1595 (2008) (dismissing unjust enrichment claim because it “would allow

12

them to circumvent the law and public policy reflected in (1) [the statutory] mandate that only an

13

injured plaintiff may assert a private action under [the consumer-protection statute], and (2) the

14

Legislature's decision not to create a private right of action for violations of the Insurance Code

15

sections relevant to this case.”). See also Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust

16

Enrichment § 44(3)(d) (2011) (disgorgement not available “if allowance of the claim would

17

conflict with liabilities or penalties for the interference provided by other law”); In re New Motor

18

Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004)

19

Third, the remedy for an unjust enrichment claim must be linked to the benefit unjustly

20

retained by the defendant. “The profit for which the wrongdoer is liable by the rule of § 51(4) is

21

the net increase in the assets of the wrongdoer, to the extent that this increase is attributable to the

22

underlying wrong.” Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51 (2011). Here,

23

the only amount retained “attributable to the underlying wrong” is the amount Twinings allegedly

24

overcharged based on the antioxidant label. Thus, the damage appears to be the same as the price

25

premium. To the extent plaintiffs could recover Twinings profit off the price premium, that would

26

actually appear more difficult for plaintiffs to prove: they would first prove the price premium

27

(something they cannot yet do), and then apply Twinings corporate rate of return (something they

28

Case No.: 12-CV-2646-RMW
Order on Motion for Leave

4

1

do not yet know) to that amount. To provide the entire profit attributable to the tea would

2

constitute a windfall to plaintiffs. See Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment

3

§ 44(3)(b) (2011) (disgorgement will be limited or denied “to the extent it would result in an

4

inappropriate windfall to the claimant, or would otherwise be inequitable in a particular case.”).
Accordingly, the court would like plaintiffs to address the following issues in any motion

5
6

for reconsideration:
•

7

Whether disgorgement of profits is an available remedy for unjust enrichment in a

8

consumer protection case (and not just generally available as a remedy for unjust

9

enrichment);
•

10

FAL, and CLRA; and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Whether a disgorgement remedy would conflict with the remedies provided by the UCL,

•

12

How plaintiffs would prove the amount of profits attributable to Twinings’ alleged wrong. 2
The court would also like Twinings to address whether the earlier dismissal of the damages

13
14

remedies in this case means the unjust enrichment claim is no longer duplicative. See In re Ford

15

Tailgate Litig., No. 11-CV-2953-RS, 2014 WL 1007066, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2014) (“To the

16

extent unjust enrichment is available as an independent claim, and not merely a remedy, it will not

17

stand where the claim simply mirrors other statutory or tort claims. . . . Should plaintiffs ultimately

18

be unable to recover under either a contract or tort theory, it does not mean a legal remedy was

19

unavailable (thereby justifying an equitable remedy of unjust enrichment), but only that their claim

20

lacks merit.”).

21

II. ORDER

22

For the reasons explained above, the court GRANTS the motion for leave to file a motion

23

for reconsideration. Plaintiffs may file a motion, not to exceed 15 pages, which at least addresses

24

the issues raised above, by March 13, 2015. Defendant may file an opposition, not to exceed 15

25

pages, by March 27, 2015. Plaintiffs may file a reply, not to exceed 7 pages, by April 3, 2015.

26
27
28

2

On this point, the court notes at the outset that plaintiffs will not be permitted to bypass the
court’s prior orders rejecting Dr. Capps’ regression models. The time for Dr. Capps to come
forward with a workable price premium model in this litigation has passed.
Case No.: 12-CV-2646-RMW
Order on Motion for Leave
5

1

The court will decide the matter on the papers unless the court notifies the parties that it wants to

2

hold a hearing.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2015
______________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 12-CV-2646-RMW
Order on Motion for Leave

6