Stafford v. Rite Aid Corporation

Filing 291

ORDER granting Plaintiff Byron 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 (ECF Nos. 287 , 290 ). Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 04/19/2023. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cxl1)

Case 3:17-cv-01340-TWR-AHG Document 291 Filed 04/19/23 PageID.13501 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

BRYON STAFFORD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE
AID HDQTRS. CORP.,
Defendants.

Lead Case No.: 17-CV-1340 TWR (JLB)
(consolidated with No. 18-CV-152 TWR
(JLB))
ORDER GRANTING 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
(ECF Nos. 287, 290)

21
22

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Bryon Stafford’s Unopposed Ex Parte

23

Application for Clarification of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’

24

Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (“Ex Parte App.,” ECF No. 290), in which

25

Plaintiff Stafford requests that the Court clarify that its April 10, 2023 Order Granting in

26

Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (the

27

“Order,” ECF No. 287) dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff Stafford’s second cause of

28

action for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) “only to
1
17-CV-1340 TWR (JLB) (consolidated with No. 18-CV-152 TWR (JLB))

Case 3:17-cv-01340-TWR-AHG Document 291 Filed 04/19/23 PageID.13502 Page 2 of 2

1

the extent the CLRA claim seeks equitable relief such that Plaintiff Stafford would remain

2

entitled to pursue the CLRA claim for damages.” (See Ex Parte App. at 1.)

3

As noted in the Order, the Court concluded that “Stafford’s claims for equitable

4

relief [we]re . . . facially deficient and warrant[ed] dismissal.” (See Order at 8 (citing

5

Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020)).) “Because Stafford

6

fail[ed] plausibly to allege that he lack[ed] an adequate remedy at law, the Court

7

GRANT[ED] Defendants’ Motion and DISMISSE[D] his claims for equitable relief in

8

their entirety.” (See id. at 10 (emphasis in original).) To the extent the Court erroneously

9

“DISMISSE[D] WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Stafford’s . . . second cause of action

10

for violation of the CLRA” in its entirety in the Conclusion of the Order, (see id. at 10–11

11

(emphasis in original)), the Court therefore GRANTS the Ex Parte Application and

12

clarifies the Conclusion of its Order as follows: The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT

13

PREJUDICE Plaintiff Stafford’s second cause of action for violation of the CLRA only

14

to the extent that his CLRA claim seeks equitable relief.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2023
_____________________________
Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-CV-1340 TWR (JLB) (consolidated with No. 18-CV-152 TWR (JLB))