1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSEPH SILVA, an individual on behalf Case No. 24-cv-1870-MMA-AHG of himself, all others similarly situated, 11 and the general public, NOTICE AND ORDER PROVIDING 12 TENTATIVE RULINGS RE: Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. REMAND 14 CREDITNINJA LENDING, LLC, et al., [Doc. No. 4] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On January 15, 2025, the parties in this action will appear before the Court for a 19 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. In anticipation of the hearing, the Court issues 20 the following tentative ruling. 21 The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Here, Plaintiff pleads two 22 claims under California law, and he seeks only a public injunction and restitution as 23 relief. The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to pursue public 24 injunctive relief. See McGovern v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 18-CV-1794-CAB-LL, 2020

, at *5–6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2020) (“Plaintiff does not have (and 26 cannot allege) Article III standing to seek public injunctive relief because public 27 injunctive relief is categorically incompatible with Article III standing.”) (citing Rogers 28 v. Lyft, Inc.,

, 919 (N.D. Cal. 2020)). Further, the Court tentatively 1 || finds that Plaintiff's decision to abandon specific types of public injunctive relief he 2 || previously sought does not change this result. 3 Moreover, the Court tentatively finds that it lacks equitable jurisdiction to award 4 || Plaintiff restitution because Plaintiff does not plead that he lacks an adequate remedy at 5 ||law. The Court tentatively notes that it is doubtful a defendant can satisfy the Sonner 6 || pleading requirement and ultimate burden of proving a lack of adequate remedy at law 7 || for a plaintiff who has chosen to do neither. But assuming Defendants can, the Court 8 tentatively finds that the factual allegations and theories underlying his claims, including 9 || the Unfair Competition Law prongs, do not differ. 10 Finally, the Court tentatively finds that Defendants did not properly brief the 11 || factors necessary to obtain a stay pursuant to Landis v. North American Co.,

(1936) and that a stay pending resolution of the appeal in Ruiz v. The 13 || Bradford Exch., Ltd., No. 3:23-CV-01800-WQH-KSC,

, 14 || at *6 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2024), USCA No. 24-3378, is not necessary or proper on these 15 || facts, including in light of the clearly emerging consensus that remand is appropriate in 16 || cases removed pursuant to CAFA but where the district court lacks subject matter and 17 || equitable jurisdiction to grant relief. Accordingly, the Court tentatively concludes that 18 ||remand is appropriate. 19 As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of 20 || counsel. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: January 13, 2025 23 Miku TM bible 24 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28