Velasquez v. Luxottica of America Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELISSA VELASQUEZ, on behalf of No. 25-1258 herself, all others similarly situated, and the D.C. No. general public, 2:25-cv-00074-MCS-PVC Plaintiff - Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 6, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON, SANCHEZ, and TUNG, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Luxottica of America Inc. (Luxottica) appeals the district court’s order granting the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Melissa Velasquez (Velasquez).

Velasquez filed a class action complaint in state court alleging unfair competition and false advertising by Luxottica. Velasquez sought only public injunctive relief and restitution. Luxottica removed the action to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

Velasquez subsequently filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The district court agreed with Velasquez that she lacked standing due to her failure to allege an actual or imminent threat of future injury. Rather, Velasquez sought public injunctive relief, which the court could not award under the claim as pled.

The district court also agreed that it lacked equitable jurisdiction to award restitution, because Velasquez did not allege that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. Because it could not provide the relief requested by Velasquez, the district court granted Velasquez’s motion to remand to state court.

At the time of its ruling, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Ruiz v. Bradford Exch., Ltd., 153 F.4th 907 (9th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 224 L.Ed.2d 528 (Apr. 27, 2026). In Ruiz, we held that “district courts are empowered to remand a removed case to state court for lack of equitable jurisdiction, but only after the removing defendant is given the opportunity to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law objection.” Id. at 909. Therefore, we remand for the district court to follow Ruiz, and provide Luxottica an opportunity “to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law objection.” Id. at 909, 918.

2 25-1258 VACATED and REMANDED.

3 25-1258