Background
Melissa Velasquez filed a class action complaint in state court alleging unfair competition and false advertising by Luxottica of America Inc. Velasquez sought only public injunctive relief and restitution. Luxottica removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of two thousand and five. Velasquez moved to remand the case to state court.
The court’s reasoning
The district court granted the motion to remand, finding that Velasquez lacked standing because she failed to allege an actual or imminent threat of future injury. The court also determined it lacked equitable jurisdiction to award restitution because Velasquez did not allege she lacked an adequate remedy at law. However, the district court did not consider the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Ruiz v. Bradford Exch., Ltd. In that decision, the court held that district courts may remand for lack of equitable jurisdiction only after giving the removing defendant an opportunity to waive the adequate remedy at law objection.
What it means going forward
The ruling requires district courts to allow removing defendants to waive the adequate remedy at law objection before remanding a case for lack of equitable jurisdiction. This ensures defendants can preserve federal jurisdiction in class actions seeking public injunctive relief.