Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC

Background

Post Foods moved for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion concerns plaintiffs’ equitable restitution claims and whether plaintiffs could continue seeking that remedy by alleging that their remedies at law—such as damages—were inadequate.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Post Foods was not correct that amendment would be futile. Plaintiffs had raised significant arguments that their legal remedies could be inadequate for at least some of the products or statements still at issue. The court referred to the broad scope of the unfair prong of the UCL, the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations compared with the three-year limitations periods under the CLRA and FAL, and the fact that the warranty claims did not cover all remaining products or statements.

The court also rejected Post Foods’ reliance on cases involving missed statutes of limitations. It distinguished this case from situations in which a plaintiff seeks an equitable claim after knowingly or mistakenly failing to file an otherwise adequate legal action on time, and from a case in which a party dropped a legal claim to avoid a jury trial.

Ruling

Judge William H. Orrick granted Post Foods’ motion in part, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs were allowed to specifically allege that their remedies at law were inadequate. The court stated that it was not deciding whether plaintiffs were entitled to equitable restitution; it was allowing them to amend their allegations so they could plausibly assert that their damages remedy was inadequate and preserve their ability to seek equitable restitution.