Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA ORONA, individually and on Case No. 25cv0140-LL-AHG behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 CLARIFICATION AND LEAVE TO v. AMEND 14 PATAGONIA, INC., 15 [ECF No. 27] Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Orona’s motion seeking clarification of the 20 Court’s March 31, 2026 Order Granting in Part Defendant Patagonia, Inc.’s Motion to 21 Dismiss First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21]. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff also requests to 22 re-open the period allowed to him to amend his pleadings if the Court clarifies that any 23 claims Plaintiff construed as viable are dismissed. Id. at 7. Defendant Patagonia, Inc. filed 24 an Opposition [ECF No. 30], and Plaintiff filed a Reply [ECF No. 31]. 25 “Although no specific Federal Rule of Civil Procedure explicitly governs motions 26 for clarification, courts have recognized and granted such motions when appropriate.” LBF 27 Travel Mgmt. Corp. v. Derosa, No. 20-cv-2404-MMA-SBC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28 1 the parties are “uncertain about the scope of a ruling” or when the ruling “is reasonably 2 susceptible to differing interpretations.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, 3 Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99–100 (D.D.C. 2018). 4 The Court clarifies as follows: 5 1. Plaintiff’s common law claims (Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4) were dismissed. ECF 6 No. 21 at 13. 7 2. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to pursue a negligent misrepresentation claim 8 pursuant to California law (Claim 2), the Court dismissed it with prejudice. Id. at 14. 9 3. The Court granted Patagonia’s motion to dismiss claims for equitable relief. 10 Id. at 20. 11 Because the Court granted Patagonia’s motion to dismiss claims for equitable relief 12 [ECF No. 15 at 29–30], the causes of action that provide only equitable relief—such as 13 injunctive relief, restitution, or disgorgement—were therefore dismissed. Those claims are 14 Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment, FAL violations, and UCL violations (Claims 4, 6, 15 7, and 8). Plaintiff’s CLRA claim survives (Claim 5), but only to the extent that it seeks 16 legal (not equitable) remedies. 17 Regarding the common law claims, the Court stated that “to the extent that Plaintiff 18 seeks to press his common law claims pursuant to California law, the Court addresses 19 Patagonia’s arguments.” ECF No. 21 at 13 (emphasis added). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 20 common law claims remained dismissed for failure to identify the applicable law governing 21 those claims. Id. at 12–13. Plaintiff was given leave to amend his complaint to cure any 22 deficiencies. Id. at 20. 23 Accordingly, the claim that survived Patagonia’s motion to dismiss is violation of 24 California’s CLRA (for legal remedies only). 25 Once a party has served its pleading, there is a short period of time when the party 26 may amend it once as a matter of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, a party 27 may amend its pleading only with written consent from the opposing party or permission 28 from the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice 1 so requires.” Id. This policy should be applied with “extreme liberality” to reflect the 2 underlying purpose of Rule 15 “to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the 3 pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). 4 “Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: 5 bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether 6 the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 7 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 The Court finds it reasonable and not indicative of bad faith that Plaintiff construed 9 certain claims as viable because this order did not expressly state which claims survived. 10 Not every ruling requires such express language in order to be unambiguous, but the Court 11 finds it reasonable here. The Court does not find undue delay or prejudice to Defendant 12 because this case is in it early stages, no discovery has been taken, and the pretrial 13 scheduling order has not yet been issued. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 14 request to re-open the period allowed to him to file a second amended complaint curing the 15 deficiencies noted in the March 31, 2026 Order as follows: 16 1. On or before July 23, 2026, Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint 17 during the deficiencies noted in the March 31, 2026 Order and pursuant to the 18 undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rules requiring a red-lined version as an attachment. Any 19 defendants not named and any claim not realleged in the amended complaint will be 20 considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 21 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged 22 in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled”); Hal Roach Studios, 23 Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 24 pleading supersedes the original.”). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / l 2. Patagonia may respond within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil 2 || Procedure 15. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: July 17, 2026 NO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28