Schroeder v. United States Ex Rel. Farmers Home Administration (2009)

Sch., 503 U.S. 60 , 75-76 (1992) (holding that when “remedies are equitable in nature . . . it is axiomatic that a court should determine the adequacy of a remedy in law before resorting to equitable relief”); Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.”).

Federal equitable principles are not subject to qualification by the intent of California’s legislature. equitable in nature . . . it is axiomatic that a court should determine the adequacy of a remedy in law before resorting to equitable relief”); Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.”).

No. 10 at 21-24.) 28 1 “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.” 2 Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009).

No. 9 at 22-23.) 5 “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.” 6 Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009).

Instead Plaintiffs “are entitled to equitable relief, 3 including restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation 4 and benefits which may have been obtained by Defendants as a result of such business 5 practices.” (Id. ¶ 134.) 6 “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.” 7 Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Sonner v. Premier 8 Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 , 844 (9th C…

Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 8 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding plaintiff must establish “she lacks an adequate remedy at law 9 before securing equitable restitution for past harm under the UCL and CLRA”); Schroeder v. 10 United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an 11 adequate remedy exists at law.”). 12 Here, as an initial matter, Defendant is correct that Plaintiff does not plead he lacks an 13 inadequat…

No. 23-1 21 at 28–29.) The Court agrees. “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate 22 remedy exists at law.” Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir 2009).

Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75-76 (1992) (holding that when “remedies are equitable in nature . . . it is axiomatic that a court should determine the adequacy of a remedy in law before resorting to equitable relief”); Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.”). 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48041 , at *9 (C.D.

Mgmt., 22 Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1557 (2007). 23 Here, the UCL claim seeks equitable relief by way of restitution and injunctive relief. 24 ECF No. 1, ¶ 85. “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at 25 law.” Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir 2009).

(FAC ¶ 92.) “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate 23 remedy exists at law.” Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir 2009).

When analyzing these 6 remedies, the Court must keep in mind “equitable relief is not appropriate where an 7 adequate remedy exists at law.” Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 8 2009). 9 The Court finds RCT’s claim is legal because the remedy is monetary damages and, 10 therefore, the claim carries a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

No. 6-1 23 at 24–27.) The Court agrees. “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate 24 remedy exists at law.” Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir 2009).

“In order to entertain a request for equitable relief, a 12 district court must have equitable jurisdiction, which can only exist under federal 13 common law if the plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy.” Id. at 1313 ; see also 14 Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[E]quitable relief is not 15 appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.”).

No. 13-1 at 14-17.) PES 15 argues that the “FAC did not cure the defect” and the “FAC still does not allege even the 16 legal conclusion that Plaintiff’s legal remedies are inadequate, let alone plead facts 17 plausibly establishing that his legal remedies are inadequate.” (Id. at 16.) The Court 18 agrees. “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.” 19 Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir 2009).

No. 3-1 at 9–11. 13 “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.” 14 Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009).

No. 6-1 at 9-11.) 10 The Court agrees. “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists 11 at law.” Schroeder v. U.S., 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir 2009).

(Mot. 24–25.) 13 “[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.” 14 Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009).

See Mort v. United States, 86 F.3d 890 , 892 22 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 , 381 23 (1992)) (“It is a basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should 24 not act . . . when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law.” (ellipsis in 25 original)); see also, e.g., Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 26 2009) (“[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at 27 l…

Claims for Equitable Relief 12 Defendant argues the Rices’ “claims for equitable relief under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, 13 and their claim for unjust enrichment, should be dismissed for the separate and independent 14 reason that Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that they have no adequate remedies at law.” MTD at 15 16 (citing Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009)).

Plaintiff contends that he can pursue equitable relief since (1) an 7 injunction is the only way to address Defendant’s continued failure to disclose its iPhone defects, 8 namely that it possesses software that allows Defendant to consume user’s data without notice, 9 and (2) his restitution claims are not commensurate with his claims for damages. 10 Under Ninth Circuit law, a plaintiff must establish that they lack an “adequate remedy at 11 law before securing equitable res…

“A plaintiff seeking equitable relief in California must establish that 27 there is no adequate remedy at law available.” Philips v. Ford Motor Co., 2015 WL 4111448 , at 1 (1994)); see also Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[E]quitable relief 2 is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.”).

Equitable Relief 27 A&C requests the following forms of equitable relief: (1) “a constructive trust on all 1 monies and property”; (2) “an injunction prohibiting [d]efendants and/or non-parties who 2 come in receipt of A&C’s monies and property . . . from distributing the money or using it 3 in any manner until it is returned to A&C’s possession”; and (3) “an order requiring A&C’s 4 monies to be returned as well as any ill-gotten benefits received by [d]efendants or any 5 ot…

Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) (citations omitted); see also Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.”).

The court wrote: “The regulations interpreting ELIHPA define a loan ‘prepayment’ as ‘[p]ayment in full of the outstanding balance on an Agency loan prior to the note’s originally scheduled maturity date.’” Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 962 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting 7 C.F.R. § 3560.11 ).

See, e.g., Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding 22 “equitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law”); Small v. Univ. 23 Med.

Equitable jurisdiction, in turn, “can only exist 9 under federal common law if the plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy.” Guzman, 49 10 F.4th at 1313; see also Schroeder v. United States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009) 11 (“[E]quitable relief is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law.”). 12 Therefore, notwithstanding California law providing a cause of action for equitable relief, 13 a federal court is nonetheless bound by its duty to assure itself of it…

However, to secure equitable restitution for past harm 14 under the UCL, a plaintiff must first establish that she lacks an adequate remedy at law. 15 Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Schroeder 16 v. United States, 569 F.3d 956 , 963 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that equitable relief is “not 17 appropriate where an adequate remedy exists at law”). 18 In their four UCL claims, Plaintiffs seek equitable restitution of the amount they 1…

See 962 F.3d at 1081 (citing Schroeder v. United 26 States, 569 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2009)). 1 3.