1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MEHVA ROFFMAN, Case No. 22-cv-05290-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 REBBL, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 62 Defendant. 11

12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Rebbl, 14 Inc. (“Rebbl”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the 15 record in this case and HEREBY GRANTS Rebbl’s motion. 16 BACKGROUND 17 The facts underlying this dispute are set forth in the Court’s Order granting, in part, and 18 denying, in part, Rebbl’s motion to dismiss the original complaint filed by Plaintiff Mehva 19 Roffman (“Roffman”). See Roffman v. Rebbl, Inc.,

, 726-27 (N.D. Cal. 2023). 20 The Court will not repeat them here except as necessary to the analysis. In brief, Roffman alleges 21 the manner in which Rebbl advertises the amount of protein in its beverages is both unlawful and 22 misleading.

23 Roffman asserts claims on behalf of herself and putative classes for alleged violations of 24 California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California’s False Advertising Law 25 (“FAL”), California’s Unfair Competition Law(“UCL”), as well as common law claims for fraud 26 and unjust enrichment. Roffman seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. (First Amended 27 Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 82, 92, 113-114, 120.) 1 ANALYSIS 2 The legal standards governing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 12(b)(6) are set forth in the Court’s previous Order and will not be repeated here. Roffman,

Supp. 3d at 727-28. Rebbl argues that Roffman still fails to allege that her legal remedies are 5 inadequate precluding her requests for equitable monetary relief. See Sonner v. Premier Nutrition, 6 Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he traditional principles governing equitable 7 remedies in federal courts, including the requisite inadequacy of legal remedies, apply when a 8 party requests restitution under the UCL and CLRA in a diversity action.”). 9 Roffman continues to allege that “if the Court requires [her and the putative class] to show 10 classwide reliance and materiality beyond the objective reasonable consumer standard” and that if 11 she and the putative class are not able to demonstrate the requisite mens rea, they may be unable 12 to obtain damages. (See FAC ¶¶ 92, 114.)1 For the reasons set forth in its previous Order, the 13 Court again concludes those allegations are not sufficient to show Roffman lacks an adequate legal 14 remedy. Roffman, 653 F. Supp. at 731 (“Roffman’s inability to obtain damages here would result 15 from her CLRA and common law claims’ failure on the merits not that there is an inherent 16 limitation of the legal remedy that renders it inadequate.”). 17 In her UCL Claim, Roffman also alleges that she: 18 seeks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, equitable relief, including the restitution for the premium and/or full price that 19 they or others paid to Defendant as a result of Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff and the Subclass lack an adequate remedy at law to obtain 20 such relief with respect to their “unlawfulness” claims in this UCL cause of action because the California Sherman Law does not 21 provide a direct cause of action, so Plaintiff and the Subclass must allege those violations as predicate acts under the UCL to obtain 22 relief. Plaintiff’s “unlawfulness” claims based on Defendant’s failure to provide a %DV in the NFP of the Products are not based 23 on the reasonable consumer standard and distinct [sic] from her fraud-based claims and Plaintiff has no legal remedy for these 24 claims. The Court has ruled that Plaintiff’s fraud claims and unlawfulness claims are distinct and that her fraud claims may be 25 expressly pre-empted, whereas her unlawful claims are not expressly pre-empted. [Citing Roffman, 653 F. Supp. 3d at 729-30.] 26 27 ] (FAC § 113 (amendment emphasized).) Roffman argues that the only way to obtain relief for this 2 || allegedly unlawful conduct is under the UCL, but the Court considered that argument when it 3 considered her allegations that the Sherman Act did not provide a private right of action. 4 || Moreover, Roffman’s new allegations are legal conclusions, not facts. 5 The Court concludes once again that Roffman’s allegations do not establish that the 6 || damages she seeks are necessarily inadequate or incomplete. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Rebbl’s motion to dismiss and dismisses 9 || Roffman’s UCL and FAL claims only to the extent she seeks equitable monetary relief as a 10 || remedy. The Court also dismisses the unjust enrichment claim. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. a | sg %L Dated: December 4, 2024 Lh AAs 13 JBFFREW S. WHI 14 Al pied PR) Dispfict Judge if ¥ ~ 16

17

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28