Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC

Background

Chobani moved to amend the court’s February 4, 2022 order so that the order could be certified for immediate, or interlocutory, appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The earlier order denied Chobani’s motion to dismiss Elena Nacarino’s third amended complaint.

That earlier order rejected Chobani’s arguments that Nacarino had failed to state a claim under the unlawful prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), had not met the heightened pleading requirements for fraud-based claims, had not adequately alleged that she lacked an adequate legal remedy before seeking restitution, and lacked standing to seek an injunction. The proposed appeal concerned only the ruling about equitable restitution and the requirement that a plaintiff show an inadequate legal remedy before obtaining that relief for past harm.

The earlier order relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp. and concluded that Nacarino had adequately pleaded an inadequate legal remedy because the court had previously dismissed her only damages claim on the merits. The court also noted that courts had taken different approaches to whether this showing must be made at the pleading stage.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification for interlocutory appeal requires three things: a controlling question of law, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and a likelihood that an immediate appeal would materially advance the end of the litigation. Certification is discretionary and generally reserved for exceptional cases.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Chobani did not satisfy the first and third requirements.

First, the proposed appeal did not present a controlling question of law. Although a successful appeal could eliminate equitable restitution as one remedy, Nacarino’s request for injunctive relief would continue. The court therefore would still have to decide Chobani’s potential liability under the UCL regardless of whether restitution remained available. The court held that the scope of Sonner’s inadequate-legal-remedy requirement was consequently not a controlling question of law.

Third, an appeal would not materially advance the litigation. Deciding whether equitable restitution was available would not eliminate the central liability issue, and it would not significantly simplify class certification, summary judgment, or trial. The opinion also noted that district courts had taken widely varying approaches to applying Sonner, but the court denied the motion based on the failure to satisfy the controlling-question and material-advancement requirements.

Disposition

The court DENIED Chobani’s motion to certify the February 4, 2022 order for interlocutory review. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 64.