Stafford v. Rite Aid Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Stafford filed an unopposed ex parte application to clarify a prior order that had dismissed his CLRA claim without prejudice, seeking confirmation that the dismissal applied only to the equitable relief portion of the claim. The court granted the application and clarified that the dismissal was limited to the extent the CLRA claim sought equitable relief, leaving the claim for damages intact.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff Stafford’s Unopposed Ex Parte Application for Clarification of Order“the Court therefore GRANTS the Ex Parte Application and clarifies the Conclusion of its Order as follows: The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Stafford’s second cause of action for violation of the CLRA only to the extent that his CLRA claim seeks equitable relief.” | agree with court The court’s clarification aligns with the reasoning provided in the underlying order, which explicitly stated that the dismissal was based on the failure to allege a lack of adequate remedy at law, a requirement specific to equitable relief. The conclusion of the underlying order appeared to contradict this reasoning by dismissing the entire CLRA claim. Clarifying the order to match the court’s stated rationale is a proper exercise of judicial authority to correct clerical or inadvertent errors in the judgment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies an internal inconsistency in the prior order (the reasoning supported dismissal only of equitable claims, but the conclusion dismissed the entire CLRA claim). By granting the unopposed application to clarify the judgment to match the reasoning, the court ensures the judgment reflects the actual decision made. No legal error is apparent in this procedural correction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYON STAFFORD, individually and on Lead Case No.: 17-CV-1340 TWR (JLB) behalf of all others similarly situated, (consolidated with No. 18-CV-152 TWR 12 (JLB)) Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 14 BRYON STAFFORD’S UNOPPOSED RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE 15 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AID HDQTRS. CORP., CLARIFICATION OF ORDER 16 Defendants. GRANTING IN PART AND 17 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL 18 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 19 (ECF Nos. 287, 290) 20 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 || 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 warrantied] 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 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 19, 2023 I [59 14 bre 18 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28