United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge.
matter came before the Court on May 18, 2017 for a hearing on
Plaintiff Munning's motion for clarification (ECF No. 60)
(“Mot.”). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks “an
order clarifying that the Court's ruling on February 24,
2017 does not prevent Plaintiff from continuing to seek
injunctive relief as part of her claim under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.” Mot. at 1:1-4. Defendants timely
opposed the motion (ECF No. 63) (“Opp'n”),
and Plaintiff timely replied (ECF No. 64)
(“Reply”). After carefully considering the
parties' written and oral arguments, the Court hereby
DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for clarification.
parties are familiar with the factual background of this
case, the Court provides only a brief summary of the facts.
are for-profit entities that sell apparel and other personal
items in retail stores and online. ECF No. 41
(“FAC”) ¶¶ 11-21. In March 2016,
Plaintiff purchased three clothing items from the
Defendants' websites: one pair of swim trunks from the
Gap Factory retail website, and one dress and one sweater
from the Banana Republic Factory website. Id.
¶¶ 47-52. Each of these items was advertised as
being on sale. Id. For example, the price of the
swim trunks appeared as follows:
$24.99 32% off
Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff alleges the prices she paid
for the three products remained unchanged for the entire week
following her purchase. Id. ¶ 55. One month
after her purchase, the price of the swim trunks slightly
increased to $17.99, while the price of the dress still
remained unchanged. Id. ¶ 56. Consequently, the
Plaintiff alleged “upon information and belief”
that the three items she purchased “were never sold or
offered for sale at the non-discounted, base prices listed on
Defendants' websites . . . . Rather, the items were
always sold and offered for sale at a price at or near the
purported ‘sale' price that Plaintiff paid.”
Id. ¶ 57. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges these
actions were part of a “uniform policy” and
“systematic scheme” which Defendants knowingly
implemented to defraud purchasers. Id. ¶ 62.
brought this putative class action against Defendants
challenging the Defendants' advertising, marketing, and
sales practices on the online Gap Factory and Banana Republic
Factory store websites. Plaintiff initially brought eleven
claims for relief against the Defendants: (1) Violations of
State Consumer Protection Statutes; (2) Violation of the
California Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); (3)
Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
(“UCL”); (4) Violation of California's False
Advertising Law (“FAL”); (5) Violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”); (6)
Violation of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”); (7) Breach
of Contract; (8) Breach of Contract under Implied Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (9) Breach of Express Warranty;
(10) Unjust Enrichment; and (11) Negligent Misrepresentation.
Id. at 15-31.
on the Defendants' first motion to dismiss, this Court
dismissed claims 1, 8, 10, and 11 with prejudice. ECF No. 29.
In the same Order, the Court also dismissed claims 2, 5, 6,
and claims for restitution and injunctive relief without
prejudice. Id. Plaintiff amended her complaint,
see ECF No. 41, and Defendants filed a second motion
to dismiss, see ECF No. 44, seeking to dismiss
claims 2, 5, 6, and Plaintiff's claims for restitution
and injunctive relief. In ruling on Defendants' second motion
to dismiss, the Court denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss claims 2, 5, and 6, but the Court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for
equitable relief, which included Plaintiff's UCL and FAL
claims. ECF No. 56 (“Order”) at 10.
More specifically, the Court found Plaintiff had sufficiently
pled a violation of the NJCFA, but the Court also dismissed
plaintiff's claims for equitable relief based on the
recognized principle in this district that a plaintiff
seeking equitable relief must establish that there is no
adequate remedy at law available. Order at 4-5, 9-10.
a recent Case Management Conference, the parties raised the
current dispute: whether the Court's prior February 24,
2017 Order dismissed Plaintiff's claim for injunctive
relief under the NJCFA. The Court instructed the parties to
submit briefing on the matter.
Plaintiff's Motion is Procedurally Proper
initial matter, the Court shall address Defendants'
procedural arguments. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's
motion as an improper motion for reconsideration.
See Opp'n at 3-4. However, as mentioned above,
during the parties' case management conference on March
20, 2017, the Court expressly instructed the Plaintiff to