Cabot v. Lectric eBikes LLC

Background

This putative class action concerns allegations that Lectric eBikes, LLC used its website and advertising materials to suggest that products were being sold at discounts when they were not. Michael Cabot asserted claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

Lectric moved for judgment on the pleadings. It argued that Cabot’s CLRA damages claim failed because he did not satisfy the CLRA’s notice requirement, that his restitution claims failed because he had not shown that money damages were inadequate, and that he lacked standing to seek injunctive relief.

CLRA Damages

The CLRA generally requires a plaintiff to give notice and demand a correction at least 30 days before filing an action for damages. Cabot first filed a CLRA claim seeking only injunctive relief on September 12, 2024. After Lectric challenged that claim, Cabot sent Lectric formal CLRA notice on May 7, 2025 and filed a First Amended Complaint adding a damages claim on May 9, 2025.

The court held that Cabot had satisfied the purpose of the notice requirement. Lectric had already been informed of the alleged misconduct through the earlier claim, more than 30 days had passed since the formal notice, and Lectric did not contend that it had corrected the alleged misconduct or needed more time to do so. The court therefore denied Lectric’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the CLRA damages claim.

Restitution

Lectric argued that Cabot could not seek restitution—an equitable remedy requiring the defendant to give up money allegedly obtained through wrongdoing—unless he alleged that he lacked an adequate legal remedy, such as damages.

The court found Cabot’s allegations sufficient at the pleading stage. Cabot alleged that the UCL claim covered misconduct broader than his other claims and that damages were not as certain as restitution because the UCL and unjust-enrichment claims involved fewer elements. The court held that these allegations plausibly showed that Cabot might be entitled to restitution and denied the motion as to his restitution claims under the CLRA, UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment theories.

Injunctive Relief

Lectric argued that Cabot lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to seek injunctive relief because he did not allege a sufficiently likely future injury. Cabot alleged that he might be interested in buying Lectric’s bicycles in the future if Lectric accurately represented their typical prices and properly labeled them.

The court held that this allegation was sufficient. It reasoned that Cabot alleged an ongoing inability to evaluate a possible future purchase using truthful information. He might not be able to decide now whether he would buy another bicycle because he did not know what future terms or representations Lectric would offer, but that uncertainty did not eliminate the alleged injury. The court therefore denied the motion as to Cabot’s claims for injunctive relief under the CLRA, UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin denied Lectric’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion did not enter judgment on the underlying claims; it ruled that the challenged claims for CLRA damages, restitution, and injunctive relief could proceed at this stage.