Kelley v. AW Distributing, Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-06942
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kelley v. AW Distributing, Judge White held plaintiffs could pursue their UCL claim but lacked standing for injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs may continue pursuing their UCL claim, but they may not pursue injunctive relief based on the standing ruling. The opinion does not state a formal disposition of the FAL claim, although the plaintiffs said they intended to dismiss it.
What happened
Kelley v. AW Distributing, Inc. involved plaintiffs’ claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. The plaintiffs said they intended to dismiss the False Advertising Law claim and alleged financial losses, loss of consortium, and similar losses caused by defendants.
The court found those allegations sufficient to establish standing to pursue the Unfair Competition Law claim and seek restitution. But the plaintiffs did not explain why they faced a likely future injury, so they lacked standing to seek an injunction.
The court did not dismiss the Unfair Competition Law claim, but concluded plaintiffs could not pursue injunctive relief. The order was issued by Judge Jeffrey White on July 12, 2022; the opinion does not state that the False Advertising Law claim was formally dismissed.
The detailed version
- Kelley v. AW Distributing, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-06942
- Jeffrey White
- July 12, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL). The opinion states that those laws provide restitution and injunctive relief, but not damages. On June 8, 2022, the court ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the claims should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient connection to the alleged injury and requested relief.
In their response, the plaintiffs said they intended to dismiss the FAL claim. They also alleged economic injury caused by the defendants, including loss of financial support, loss of consortium, and other similar losses.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the alleged losses were sufficient to establish both Article III standing and statutory standing under the UCL. The court distinguished standing to pursue the UCL claim and restitution from standing to seek each particular form of relief.
For injunctive relief, the plaintiffs had to show a concrete legal injury and a real and immediate likelihood that they would be injured again in a similar way. The plaintiffs did not address those requirements in their response. The court therefore found that their allegations did not show a sufficient likelihood of future injury.
Disposition
The court stated that it would not dismiss the UCL claim. It concluded, however, that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief. The order’s title states that the order to show cause was discharged in part. Although the plaintiffs said they intended to dismiss the FAL claim, the opinion does not state that the court formally dismissed that claim. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.